ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[ssac-gnso-irdwg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides

  • To: Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>, Ird <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
  • From: James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 08:36:26 -0500


I agree.

Jim



-- On February 1, 2011 5:25:27 PM -0800 Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides --

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:

> Dave,
>
> 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.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> -- 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,
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ------ 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
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> __
>>> Francisco
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> ICANN
>>> Internet Corporation for
>>> Assigned Names and Numbers
>>> P:  +1 (310) 578 8607
>>> C:  +1 (310) 463 8430
>>> www.icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>>
>>
>
>






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy