1 / 24

Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Interim Report

Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Interim Report. 15 February 2011. Goal of this presentation. Brief the community of IRD-WG’s work Solicit feedback on the proposed recommendations. Introduction.

derora
Download Presentation

Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Interim Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Interim Report 15 February 2011

  2. Goal of this presentation • Brief the community of IRD-WG’s work • Solicit feedback on the proposed recommendations

  3. Introduction • Internationalized domain name (IDN) guidelines exist for domain labels and names. • No standards exist for submission and display of domain registration data in directory services.

  4. IRD-WG Goals • Study the feasibility and suitability of introducing submission and display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data

  5. What is Domain Registration Data? • Data that registrants provide at time of registering a domain • Includes the domain name, • Nameservers, • Sponsoring registrar information, • Contact information • the names and postal addresses of the Registered Name Holder, technical contact and administrative contact • Email, fax, phone number of contacts • This information is displayed using the WHOIS protocol for gTLD registries and registrars

  6. Internationalizing Domain Registration Data Various elements of registration data could be separately internationalized as follows:

  7. Four Models for Internationalizing Registration Contact Data The IRD-WG members discussed four possible models but did not endorse any particular model. They are seeking comment from the community on which model, if any, is appropriate. • Model 1: Registrants provide domain contact data in “Must Be Present” script. • Model 2: Registrants provide data in any registrar-accepted script and registrars provide point of contact for transliteration or translation. • Model 3: Registrants provide data in anyregistrar-accepted script and registrars provide transliteration tools to publish in “Must be Present” script. • Model 4: Registrants provide data in any registrar accepted language and registrars provide translation tools to publish in “Must be Present” language.

  8. Why Different Models? • To avoid the « tower of babble » effect for registration data • Accommodate scenarios where user, registrant, and registration provider have different local language preferences to the extent possible • To balance between cost and usability of the registration data, • consider a range of submission scenarios that includes transliteration or a mandatory (must be present) script • consider scenarios where different parties (registrant, registrar) provide transliteration • To consider needs of human users as well as legitimate automation (applications that parse and analyze registration data)

  9. Model 1

  10. Model 2

  11. Model 3

  12. Model 4

  13. Summary of Models Model 2: Point of Contact by Registrar

  14. Preliminary Recommendations for Community Consideration Preliminary Recommendation (1):For a directory service in the IDN environment: WHOIS protocol clients (both port 43 and web) must be able to accept a user query of domain name in either U-label or A-label format; WHOIS protocol clients must be able display result of queries in both U- and A-label for the domain names; and Domain registration data should include variants of an IDN label in the response as well.

  15. Preliminary Recommendations for Community Discussion Preliminary Recommendation (2):How could each data element be separately internationalized? Directory services should return both A-label and U-label representation for the given IDN domains queried; Directory services should return both A-label and U-label representations for name server names (to the extent that such information is available); Directory services should always make sponsoring registrar information available in US-ASCII7; and Directory services should always return the exact EPP status code for Registration Status.

  16. Questions for Community Consideration Which of the four models for internationalizing registration contact data is most appropriate, if any? Are there other models the IRD-WG should consider? Which of the preliminary recommendations, if any, are feasible? Are there related recommendations the IRD-WG should consider? Issues of language tag: Is there a need to for the contact information to be in multiple languages/scripts?

  17. Thank You and Questions

  18. Back up slides

  19. Summary of IRD-WG Discussion • Is the WHOIS Protocol Able To Support Internationalized Registration Data? • Query and Display of Variants in Internationalized Registration Data • What Capabilities Are Needed for Directory Services in the IDN Environment? • How to Accommodate Users Who Want To Submit and Have Registration Data Displayed in Local Scripts? • Models for Internationalizing Registration Contact Data • Preliminary Recommendations for Community Consideration

  20. Terminology *ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange is a character-encoding scheme based on the ordering of the English alphabet

  21. Query and Display of Variants in Internationalized Registration Data • It is outside the scope of IRD-WG to define variants. • The IRD-WG will use the categories as they are generally defined (activated vs. reserved): • Activated: Variants that are in the DNS; and • Reserved: For a given domain, these are variants that are not in DNS, but are reserved. • Query of activated variants should return all information of the domain. • Query of reserved variants is a matter of local policy.

  22. Internationalizing the WHOIS protocol According to RFC 3912: “The WHOIS protocol has no mechanism for indicating the character set in use …. This inability to predict or express text encoding has adversely impacted the interoperability (and, therefore, usefulness) of the WHOIS protocol.” • RFC 3912 is silent about encoding other than requiring a specific end of line marker.

  23. Internationalizing the WHOIS protocol • It is out of the scope of this working group to specify a replacement protocol for WHOIS • It is within the scope of the working group to set the general requirements for the replacement protocol • WHOIS protocol clients must be able to accept a user query of domain name in either U-label or A-label format; • WHOIS protocol clients must be able display results of queries in both U-label and A-label for the domain names; and • Bundled representations of a single U-label or A-label query should be returned.

  24. An Example

More Related