(unknown)

I was mislead by the text of the scope into believing that seeked user 
inputs could be formulated in the user plain language. I understand now 
that we developers, users, DNS Managers are to follow the IETF rules to 
permit this WG to fulfill its mission to repot on us. Because these rules 
prevent external pressures and help you determining real life needs.

I therefore try to gather enough expertises in these areas and to make them 
write a draft document. I have no resource for such an endeavor and very 
little time. So I will continue only if it would be of help?

The first inputs and meetings, lead to questions that a reveiw of the WG 
mandate helps listing. What do you think covered, you want to disregard and 
you would wish we focus on?

<quote>
The goal of the group is to specify the requirements for internationalized 
access to domain names and to specify a standards track protocol based on 
the requirements.
</unquote>

We have problems with an International Standard constistent definition of 
"internationalized", "access" and "domain names". Is there an IETF, ISO, 
CEI definition we could use? Is there a more complete documentation of the 
posed problem?


<quote>
The scope of the group is to investigate the possible means of doing this 
and what methods are feasible given the technical impact they will have on 
the use of such names by humans as well as application programs, as well as 
the impact on other users and administrators of the domain name system.
</quote>

this group has determined that Unicode was to be used to support natural 
names into the DNS. We do not find a discussion of the alternatives. A part 
from being in the charter, it is the only way to foster innovation and/or 
evolutions in continuity.

our target is to help this group's investigation concerning the impact on 
humans and applications as well as on computer and network services 
including DNS, OPES, mail, web services ..administrators.

We understand that no questionnaire has been sent yet to the Internet 
community to gather the necessary information and comments. Current group 
exchanges show there is a lack of agreement among the WG on the needs and 
impacts. Also that "technical impact" is understood in extremely 
restrictively (within the proposed solution, not as all the technical 
impacts of a proposed solution).

no user, developer, administrator group should impose its requirements, and 
impact the global solution. So we are only ready to share, with other user 
groups, in the drafting of a questionnaire to poll the Global Internet 
Community.

- Is this an acceptable approach?
- Is it technically feasible?


<quote>
A fundamental requirement in this work is to not disturb the current use 
and operation of the domain name system, and for the DNS to continue to 
allow any system anywhere to resolve any domain name.
</quote>

we feel that the currently proposed solution affects the current operations 
and management of the DNS system due to:

1. the lack of documented separation between the domain name as an 
alphanumeric pointer to an IP address, and as a mnemonic. The only current 
response are the US ACPA and to some extent the ICANN UDRP. We do not think 
they are technical responses matching the IDN additional concerns.

2. the non documented (analyze, rational, nature, evolution) introduction 
of a "prefix" in DNS names. At minimum we understand it as a second 
parallel namespace, unrelated to the first namespace by any existing rule 
from the first namespace. But, based upon pragmatic experience, we 
understand it as the introduction of a cross hierarchy in the namespace.

3. the lack of proposed solution to separate IDN zones in DNS files.

We may be wrong, but we feel that should the IETF work on the first very 
basic point, every other point we rise would be easy to solve, or would 
even not exist.


<quote>
The group will not address the question of what, if any, body should 
administer or control usage of names that use this functionality.
</quote>

We agree as no one should be made in position to maintain a second DNS 
cross-hierarchy. This is why we feel the prefix proposition may result from 
some existing administration. The solution should be global. If 
pre-existing practices are supported: all the better, but this should not 
limit the thinking.


<quote>
The group must identify consequences to the current deployed DNS 
infrastructure, the protocols and the applications as well as transition 
scenarios, where applicable.
</quote>

As a particular group, we may have a solution to propose. We believe it is 
transparent to the existing DNS infrastructure and requires no protocol and 
minimal application changes; and no transition as it only calls on 
progressives updates of the applications software on a per keyboard basis.

This proposition would motivate our effort. But our main target would be to 
help this group to better understand the needs and the impacts on the 
users. How should we proceed?


<quote>
The WG will actively ensure good communication with interested groups who 
are studying the problem of internationalized access to domain names.
</quote>

This is the problem we want to help addressing.
For that we need the help and the understanding of this group.
I would suggest that other groups do the same.


<quote>
The Action Item(s) for the Working Group are
1. An Informational RFC specifying the requirements for providing 
Internationalized access to domain names. The document should provide 
guidance for development solutions to this problem, taking localized (e.g. 
writing order) and related operational issues into consideration.
</quote>

This is where we want to help.
May be as co-author?


<quote>
2. An Informational RFC or RFC's documenting the various proposals and 
Implementations of Internationalization (i18n) of Domain Names. The 
document(s) should also provide a technical
evaluation of the proposals by the Working Group.
</quote>

This is where we would like to see our proposition evaluated. This is why 
it would be really useful to us if a definition of the different layers 
involed could be made. We trust the expertise of this group for the inner 
Unicode/Ascii "black-box": we are interested in the management of its "I/O".


<quote>
3. A standards track specification on access to internationalized domain 
names including specifying any transition issues.
</quote>

it seems that a rough consensus here is that a solution could go in 
operations and to be tuned further on. This cannot be: one cannot repel 
millions of names. To avoid "babelnet" the alternative is:
- to proose a very limited IEFT experiment (aside of the other test beds),
- to get a solution universally endorsed by users, developpers, admins and 
lawyers .

Question: would that effort of ours be of any worth to you?
If yes, I will try.

thank you.
jfc