Network Working Group Jean-Francois C. Morfin
Internet-Draft Projet.FRA
Intended status: Informational February 26, 2011
Expires: August 27, 2011
Orthotypographic support by IDNA2008: an IUse point of view.
draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00.txt
Abstract
IDNA 2008 does not support, as such, the language orthotypography
that IUsers need and that the evolution towards the Intersem
(Semantic Internet) reclaims. This memo introduces the positive
position of the IUse community on the matter.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................... 3
2. IUse emerging community........................................ 3
3. We accepted John Klensin"s position............................ 3
4. The WG did not care about French............................... 3
4.1. we reported it to IESG/LC................................ 3
4.2. our position is qualified as "research".................. 4
5. Strength of IDNA2008 and IDNA weakness......................... 4
5.1. The presentation layer................................... 4
5.2. The IUI.................................................. 5
5.3. Technical vs. technico-commercial disagreement........... 5
6. A strictly conformant architectural enhancement................ 5
6.1. RFC 1958 principle of constant change.................... 5
6.2. RFC 3439 principle of simplicity......................... 5
6.3. RFC 5890 to RFC 5895 set contribution.................... 6
7. The IUse community primary targets............................. 6
7.1. active/ambient content................................... 6
7.2. extended network services................................ 6
7.3. semantic networking...................................... 6
7.4. multilingualisation...................................... 7
7.4.1. "multilinguistics"................................. 7
7.4.2. "mecalinguistics".................................. 7
7.4.3. metalinguistics.................................... 7
7.5. convergence of the digital ecosystem use:................ 7
7.6. personal digital empowerment:............................ 7
7.7. diktiologies support:.................................... 8
7.7.1. the science of networks............................ 8
7.7.2. networked ontology................................. 8
8. Market evolution............................................... 8
9. Current situation.............................................. 8
9.1. IESG and IAB............................................. 9
9.2. Unicode.................................................. 9
9.3. ICANN.................................................... 9
10. Security Considerations....................................... 9
11. IANA Considerations........................................... 9
Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
1. Introduction
This memo clarifies the IUser point of view, regarding the lack of
orthotypographic support by IDNA2008. This may be of interest, since
we initially and determinedly opposed case-folding as an example of
this general lack of orthotypographic support. However, we were able
to join the final consensus because it acknowledges an existing, yet
ignored, major and powerful capacity of the Internet technology to
support the diversity that is necessary for a main component of the
world digital ecosystem.
2. IUse emerging community
An IUser is a member of the IUse emerging community who is interested
in the people centric convergent use of the Internet along with the
other (smart or not) available bandwidths from the world digital
ecosystem. IUse can be understood as the Intelligent Use of the World
Digital Ecosystem. Intelligence (inter-legere), should be understood
at the three layers of interlinking information knowledge, and the
clever use of that interlinking knowledge.
3. We accepted John Klensin"s position
During the WG/IDNABis work, we were able to identify that IDNA2008
casefolding permitted a clear and stable response for the Internet
bandwidth that we could typically interface with our own ML-DNS
(multi-naming-layer language/technology/context independent) concept.
Such an ML-DNS, as we explore and work on it, could be documented as
another RFC 5895-like example on the user side of the network side
IDNA2008: its particularity is to manage a naming pile rather than a
single name and to
4. The WG did not care about French
This ML-DNS of us addresses our "Projet.FRA" needs for a Francophone
open ontology using its name space as an ontology and a semantic
network, which I reported to the IESG Last Call.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt.
4.1. we reported it to IESG/LC
It emphasizes that IDNA2008 does not support French majuscules (first
letter in a phrase or in an important word) that Unicode does _not_
support either, except as uppercases and, therefore, our obligation
to build a solution on top of IDNA2008. This is because Unicode
tables document a mechanical typography, and registrants need to have
their orthotypography rules (and not tables) supported
(orthotypography is the syntax of the way one writes a language -
something that is out of the IDNA2008 and Unicode scope). French
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
language speakers unwaveringly demand such a support as well as the
other Latin language speakers. To explain: "Etat" means
"State/Government," etat" means "status", etc. That situation calls
for:
* a mapping of everything to lowercase so that everything is stable,
clear, and secure.
* us to add the majuscule information as a metadata that we
investigated in
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-punyplus-03.txt.
4.2. our position is qualified as "research"
The IESG considered our position and our plea for a quick validation
of the IDNA2008 consensual document set (so that we would know the
rock to build upon). IESG also considered our proposition as
"research". Since we have other topics for semantic research on this
project, we are considering different choices with members of the
MAAYA network (linguistic diversity) and will introduce ".fra" (along
with other projects we call "xTLD"s, i.e. experimental TLDs, once
ICANN finishes its gTLD rigmarole, in order to avoid any unnecessary
naming conflicts). We will first document a charter on the way to use
the Internet as its own test bed through an RFC for information on
"intertesting" in gathering different ICANN and IETF requirements.
5. Strength of IDNA2008 and IDNA weakness
Another reason why we pleaded for IDNA2008 to be quickly accepted was
that the AD (once we had completed the WG/LC and IETF/LC) started to
question, and rightly so, the IDNA principle itself. As RFC 6055
partly also does: will different applications present the same
A-label to the DNS? Our ML-DNS vision addresses that concern because
it extends the DNS and, therefore, utilizes a single Internet DNS Use
Interface with unchanged applications that are transparent to the
U-label actually entered by the Users.
5.1. The presentation layer
This is the role of the presentation layer. "The Presentation Layer
is responsible for the delivery and formatting of information to the
application layer for further processing or display." The Internet
presentation layer was virtual. It was introduced by i-DNS and by
IDNA2003 in using the "xx--" ACE prefixes. Yet the idea to dedicate
it to the sole linguistic names at user application layer (i.e.
outside of the network area) was only a patch that the ML-DNS (i.e.
on top of the DNS in the network area) corrects. Applications like
browsers have nothing to do with domain name massaging, we just want
them to pass our entries to the domain name management systems
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
(plural, as we may or not be using the Internet or the Internet
technology, and the DNS or not).
5.2. The IUI
However, this introduces the notion of a fringe IUI (Internet Use
Interface) that faces no problem in becoming an "Intelligent Use
Interface" with multiple technologies, and to consider an IUDNS
(intelligent use domain name space) of which the Internet domain
space is a small yet open part, of which the class IN is 1/65,000-th
and of which the ICANN root space is a tiny commercial chunk.
5.3. Technical vs. technico-commercial disagreement
IAB RFC 3869 explains as to why the commercial reasons of
applications developers, who are also service providers, such as
Microsoft and Google, and their Unicode consortium, may lead some of
their employees to plea/lobby against common technical interest, for
an internet that pays better rather than works better. The same,
paying services or immaterial goods merchants may prefer a
client/server architecture tying users to their proprietary offer
(such as Apple etc., which is another Unicode consortium leading
member). However, some IETF leaders and smart Google people have now
swallowed and are digesting the optional change introduced by
IDNA2008 with:
* the "inside" Internet
* encapsulated into an uncoupled peripheral extended (intelligent)
services "IUI" (Internet Use Interface), interfacing the user
universe,
* itself accessing and operating the Internet and other systems of
the world digital ecosystem though their own "IUI" (Intelligent
Use Interface).
6. A strictly conformant architectural enhancement
This change totally conforms with the Internet architectural
principles:
6.1. RFC 1958 principle of constant change
The change is dramatic but does not require a single bit change in
the code. It consists in looking at the Internet from the outside
rather than from the inside.
6.2. RFC 3439 principle of simplicity
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
Why give huge and unlimited DNS responsibility to browsers and
applications. Let's keep it simple. ASCII just works, let not fix it
with complexity (cf. the exemple of this thread)
6.3. RFC 5890 to RFC 5895 set contribution
These RFC set unlimitedly "multiplies by division" the power of the
Internet in installing an endlessly diversified intelligent capacity
to match external diversity (such as linguistic diversity) where RFC
1958 and all the IETF culture puts it: at the fringe. By doing so, it
acknowledges that the Internet technology matches a third fundamental
networking principle, the principle of subsidiarity.
7. The IUse community primary targets
Based on the ML-DNS/IUI principle, we mainly target seven fringe to
fringe areas:
7.1. active/ambient content
The internet currently only supports passive content (what I receive
is what was sent). We need active (what I receive is what the sender
intended me to receive) and ambient (what I receive is what
corresponds to my current context) contents to be supported.
7.2. extended network services
We want to get local slots supported (smart local operative tasks),
i.e. local OPES or peers to the remote connection peers able to
uncouple the client/server interoperations and extend the user's
experience of the used network's technology.
7.3. semantic networking
We consider three main communication strata serving
* signal/data basic services,
* content (passive [value-added services], active and ambient
[extended services]),
* and semiotic/semantic (facilitation services). Semiotic means the
incorporation of many sources of perception and utterance other
than script and dumb voice and image. Semantic means the exchange
of meanings that can be extracted and processed by the
facilitation services along with the perceived context and the
receiving mood and options. Semantics' coherence is as precise as
geometry's correspondance and mathematics equivalence. Their
figures only can be draft, computed or discussed.
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
7.4. multilingualisation
We consider an anthropobotic society where machines and people
interspeak. This means that several new linguistic disciplines must
be considered:
7.4.1. "multilinguistics"
We understand "multilinguistics" as the study of the way several
languages may coexist in use, machines, process, and society, and be
treated as equal (multilingualisation is a layer above Unicode's
globalization in the sense that it could be termed as a specific
value added equal globalization of every natural language). A
multilinguistic Internet would probably focus on a score of
languages, and then 150 main languages in an operational community
effort, and a standardized approach for volunteers and/or local
authorities to get other natural languages (22.500) identified,
documented, and supported.
7.4.2. "mecalinguistics"
We understand "mecalinguistics" as the study of the way to manage
machines' natural language and their interinfluence with the language
version of the language. Example: English and MecaEnglish and
MecaFrench.
7.4.3. metalinguistics
Up to now metalanguages were rather limited depending on the natural
language being considered, French being probably the most
metalanguage embedded. However, facilitation is going to call on
ontographies and ontologies that will lead to a generalization of the
mostly French used "metaduction" (what is wrongly termed "Cartesian")
as a simplification of deduction, induction, abduction, and
hypothetico-deduction in front of the apparent networking complexity
(RFC 3439 is a network oriented prerequisite in this area).
7.5. convergence of the digital ecosystem use:
The World Summit on the Information Society has clearly defined the
humanity consensual target of a digital societal support being
"people centered, a caractere humain, centrada en la persona". We
assign the IUI the role to provide the user with an equal alternative
basic, value added, extended and facilitated, and stable enough
networking experience with any digital technology and digital
communication network environment.
7.6. personal digital empowerment:
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
Through the above, the definition of a user oriented (graphic sign)
international network character set (e.g. Bulgaria IDNccTLD problem),
the establishment of an MDRS (metadata distributed registry system)
to be understood as a distributed personal super-IANA cognition
center for the three strata that we defined and their related
services, etc. we want to ensure the full e-empowerment of every
person (we make the difference between a user in a (de)centralized
user (i.e. customer) centric approach and a person in a person
centric distributed and/or intricate environment.
7.7. diktiologies support:
Since "diktyos" in Greek means network, diktyology has two meanings:
7.7.1. the science of networks
Diktyology should be understood as the science of studying networks,
at large, from quarks to the Internet through to political and
commercial lobbies.
7.7.2. networked ontology
A diktyology is by equivalence the multidimensional, diversified,
open, and intricate network equivalent to an ontology. What
"Projet.FRA" actually targets is a Francophone diktyology associated
to a diktyography. Some network level and distributed/intricate
integrated semantic web equivalent to be used and completed by people
through the MDRS.
8. Market evolution
Now, some clever service provider's people will understand where the
market lies for their corporation in this IUse usage evolution, and
they will be the network commercial leaders of tomorrow. Others will
not, and they will see the progressive obsolescence of their market
share. What is interesting is that the coming Brussels talk between
ICANN and GAC may trigger a fast evolution if they obstinately (both
sides) continue to ignore Vint Cerf's proposition, as the WG/IDNABis
Chair, that the user oriented debate in the continuation of IDNA2008
should be managed by ICANN. I opposed that because ICANN does not
represent users, but that was unnecessary: ICANN is not even
interested in the matter (don't ask me why), even if it leads to
total confusion in their part of the IUDNS.
9. Current situation
I/we delayed the introduction of ML-DNS for personal health (in my
case) as well as for strategic reasons, to give time to the IESG,
IAB, and Unicode members to consider where/how these issues should be
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IDNA2008/Orthotypography February 2011
addressed and documented, and to permit ICANN to reconsider, due to
its new BoD Members. So far,
9.1. IESG and IAB
IESG and IAB were clear enough through their response to my appeal
for them not to alert the IETF community: the IUI does not belong to
their "inside" Internet scope (moreover, it will deal with many other
technologies), I am taking this into account to try to structure the
IUse community, using the iucg@ietf.org non-WG mailing list as an
open liaison between the two scopes.
9.2. Unicode
Unicode has not introduced any proposition to support
orthotypographic metadata.
9.3. ICANN
ICANN has continued to enlarge their GAG (gTLD applicant Guide).
10. Security Considerations
This text covers a change in the perception of the Internet
architecture, which may raise considerable security concerns outside
of the "inside" Internet.
11. IANA Considerations
This text covers a situation where the IANA will totally change its
nature, in turn becoming distributed and entangled with private
referents on each person's system.
Author's address
Jean-Francois C. Morfin
Intlnet
120 Ch. des Crouzettes
Saint-Vincent de Barbeyrargues
34730 Saint-Vincent de Barbeyrargues
France
Phone: (33.1) 09 74 55 66 54
Email: jefsey@jefsey.com
URI: http://a-fra.org
Morfin Expires August 27, 2011 [Page 9]