Re: [registrars] REALNAMES - stopping service 30th June.

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>]

Hi Ross,

Based on your comments, it seems that you didnt really understand what I was
trying to say about Neteka's offerings.  I apologize for doing a bit of
advertising here, but I feel it necessary to clarify my point.

What I meant by:
> > 2. accept requests sent by existing software and prepare for the
standard
> at
> > the same time

Is that it is evident that a lot of the existing software will send out a
multilingual request to the wire and the request will successfully be passed
through the ISP resolvers and root servers and end up at the registry DNS.
It is then up to the registry DNS whether to try to resolve the name, which
could be in a certain local encoding, or unicode or might even have been
tampered with by one of the nodes it went through while getting to the
registry DNS.  Neteka's software (NeDNS) can successfully decode these
requests and match it uniquely with the intended multilingual domain name.

This is what Neteka offers.

At the same time, if the standard specifies a particular ACE format to be
used for multilingual domain names, then future software will convert
multilingual names into ACE format before sending to the wire, in that case
when the Registry DNS receives the request, it will be in xx--ACE format.
Neteka's software can also successfully resolve these request to the same
intended multilingual domain name.

This is what we mean by allowing a smooth transition.

The fact that existing software will continue to be used and will continue
to generate non-conforming requests for multilingual domain names mean that
the Registry can choose to either ignore them or resolve them.  Neteka
believes that the registry should resolve them to allow a transparent
experiece for the user.

Thoughts?

Edmon



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> What I do have strong concern about is the
> general capability to deliver on the transition plan over the long term.
> Microsoft pulling the plug on Realnames shines a very bright light on the
> capability of alternate naming systems (including IDN at this point) to
> actually deliver on the promises that are necessarily made to consumers to
> drive adoption. I am sure that Realnames had a very good transition
strategy
> to deal with CNRP, as I am sure that VRSN has/had a very good strategy to
> migrate IDNs. And, were it not for the fact that we are discussing the
> fabric of the Internet, this would be nothing more than an intellectual
> exchange.
>
> Perhaps I'm naive, but when I hear people like Klensin advocating a
cautious
> approach, advocating that the transition to a global IDN standard will,
and
> should, take ten years, I listen. And, like others in this forum I'm sure,
> had this been the story presented to us when IDNs were first introduced by
> VGRS, our rush to offer them may have been somewhat different.
>
> >
> > 1. only implement the standard and reject unconforming requests sent by
> > existing software
> > 2. accept requests sent by existing software and prepare for the
standard
> at
> > the same time
> >
>
> A large part of the problem is that, at least from a registry perspective,
> these options seem to change on a weekly basis. Further, these continually
> seem to be tied to the cooperation of various vendors of proprietary
> technology or worse, platform specific plug-ins. The DNS is not something
> that can be changed from the client in, or the server out. Paradoxically,
as
>  Postel pointed out, it needs to happen "all at the same time" - and until
> this is recognized, I can't see the buy-side portion of the industry
looking
> upon the proposed solutions with the same sort of grace that we did the
last
> time around.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> -rwr
>
>
>