Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
- To: James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>, Ird <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
- From: Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:25:27 -0800
My point is that *both* forms are useful, neither is more preferable.
I see no reason to be stingy w/r/t data we return in a Whois response. It's
not like we're talking megabytes of data here.
On 2/1/11 10:38 AM, "James M Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You ask a good for which I don't have a definite answer. I don't know
> which form would be more preferable since I think it would depend on
> the user reviewing the information.
> For now, I would agree with your assessment that we don't have enough
> experience to really know for sure. I'm okay with either choice and
> then we see what happens.
> -- On January 31, 2011 5:50:14 PM -0800 Dave Piscitello
> <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft
> outreach slides --
>> Some observations re: name server names.
>> When OpSec and LEA look up whois, they are not only interested in
>> learning about registrants and other contacts, but name server names,
>> too. Making these user friendly (A-label) as well as easily parsed by
>> existing automation would be beneficial.
>> Example. Consider someone who is familiar with the name generating
>> algorithm or name "set" of a fast flux or botnet. These parties could
>> benefit from being able to read the domain name of a name server in
>> A-label format rather than U-label.
>> I don't know if we have sufficient experience with IDNs, but would
>> others agree that it is generally the case that ASCII7 labels are
>> more "readable" than labels of the form "XN--" even among individuals
>> for whom ASCII7 is not the native character set?
>> On 1/31/11 7:41 PM, "Steve Sheng" <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Dear all, see comments from Francisco Arias, ICANN registry
>>> technical liaison, on internationalizing data elements.
>>> Warm regards,
>>> ------ Forwarded Message
>>> From: Francisco Arias <francisco.arias@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:59:07 -0800
>>> To: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
>>> Taking advantage of a waiting period for feedback on my papers I
>>> gave a quick review to the slides and have comments on the
>>> substance of the work as shown in slide 6, see below.
>>> 1. Name server names may not need to be internationalized, since
>>> they are a parameter information (as IP addresses). In fact,
>>> strictly speaking they are a DNS parameter and as such, not subject
>>> to internationalization. Remember IDNA is i18n of domain names for
>>> use in Applications, not in DNS. 2. Sponsoring Registrar may need
>>> to be internationalized since this is an important parameter in
>>> the interaction with registrants; they often need to refer to the
>>> registrar and need a familiar way to do so. In order to allow for
>>> easy interoperation, it may be wise to consider displaying the
>>> registrar ID (as kept by IANA) along with an internationalized name
>>> for the registrar. 3. For the email, is incorrect to refer to an
>>> experimental RFC (5335) for standardization. Maybe, instead the WG
>>> may want to say that once there is an standard for EAI, it should
>>> be used.
>>> 4. Registration status may be worth considering them for i18n in
>>> some standard way (maybe an IANA registry comprised of a table of
>>> the status, language tag, and the standard translation for the
>>> status. I think this is important, in order to avoid user confusion.
>>> From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:00:35 -0800
>>> To: Ird <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
>>> Dear IRD-WG,
>>> Attached please find the draft outreach slides. In this
>>> presentation, we focus on the different models and ways to
>>> internationalize domain registration data. We also provided
>>> rational for discussing the different models.
>>> As agreed, please provide feedback to the slide deck on the
>>> mailing list. We also appreciate if you could suggest times and
>>> target audience for the outreach.
>>> Warm regards,
>>> Steve Sheng
>>> Senior Technical Analyst
>>> Internet Corporation for
>>> Assigned Names and Numbers
>>> P: +1 (310) 578 8607
>>> C: +1 (310) 463 8430
>>> ------ End of Forwarded Message