Subject: Re: Solicitation for a discussion on Keyword-based addressing

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:48:23 +0200

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:16:36AM +0800,
 zhangguoqiang <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 156 lines which said:

> Different from search engines, keyword-based addressing is an
> addressing technology. Based on whether a keyword is registered or
> not, the resolution result is determinstic for any given keyword, 

Then it will have all the problems of the domain names, including
bureaucratic registration rules, UDRP, lawyers, ICANN, etc.

> For example, if you are a blogger of a portal blog website,
> typically, you are assigned a URL that identifies your blog. It is
> usually composed of two parts: a domain name and an ID(typically a
> magic number). So how can you advertise your blog to your friends? 

tinyurl.com

But it is simpler to buy a domain name and redirect.

> So, we think keyword-based addressing is a very useful technique,
> especially for non-english speaking countries. Even for english
> speaking countries, the above example also illustrates its
> practicability. To internationalize this service and provide cross
> resolution capability, we highly recommend a standard being
> developped. 

I'm very skeptical but I'll read your draft.

> Our keyword-based addressing draft is available at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-keyword-ddds-00, which
> specifies keyword-based addressing as a DDDS application.

You apparently do not mention RFC 2345 (keywords are a very old idea
which keep popping up from time to time).

---

From: "zhangguoqiang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:55:24 +0800

The dispute is inevitable. But policy issues don't prevent domain names from being widely used, and it should not prevent keyword as well.  

2009-04-01 

zhangguoqiang 

发件人： Stephane Bortzmeyer 
发送时间： 2009-04-01  16:48:32 
收件人： zhangguoqiang 
抄送： apps-discuss; YAO Jiankang 
主题： Re: Solicitation for a discussion on Keyword-based addressing 
 
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:16:36AM +0800,
 zhangguoqiang  <[email-masked] > wrote 

tinyurl.com

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:18:25 -0700

>bureaucratic registration rules, UDRP, lawyers, ICANN, etc.

It will have *some* of the problems of those systems, but not all of them. The problems will be limited by the policies adopted by the keyword admins.

>> magic number). So how can you advertise your blog to your friends?

That is one answer, but not a protocol.

>But it is simpler to buy a domain name and redirect.

How is that simpler than buying a keyword?!?

>I'm very skeptical but I'll read your draft.

...but not before posting to the list. :-)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:43:28 -0400

--On Wednesday, April 01, 2009 09:18 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> addressing technology. Based on whether a keyword is
>>> registered or not, the resolution result is determinstic for
>>> any given keyword,
>> 
>> Then it will have all the problems of the domain names,
>> including bureaucratic registration rules, UDRP, lawyers,
>> ICANN, etc.
> 
> It will have *some* of the problems of those systems, but not
> all of them. The problems will be limited by the policies
> adopted by the keyword admins.

Yes.  And because of the distributed nature of DDDS, there is
potentially less "opportunity" for arguments about the One True
Root and who is in charge of it, disputes about who has "rights"
to establish a tree, etc.  Localization of those issues would be
a huge help with regard to the set of problems we have
encountered with the DNS (and of which ICANN, lawyers, UDRP,
etc., are either causes or symptoms, depending on how one looks
at the situation).

Whether this draft, which seems to assume a country-based
structure, is the best one, is another matter that at least
deserves further study.

>>> typically, you are assigned a URL that identifies your blog.
>>> It is usually composed of two parts: a domain name and an
>>> ID(typically a magic number). So how can you advertise your
>>> blog to your friends?
>> 
>> tinyurl.com
> 

It is also a single point of failure located at a few addresses
close together on the Internet, with all that implies about
scaling and robustness.

>...

I've read this draft a couple of times and will need to read it
at least once more before being ready to comment in-depth.  My
sense so far is that it needs work and that I'd like to
understand why certain decisions were made, but that the idea is
interesting for all of the reasons why keyword systems "above
the DNS" have always been interesting.

I find it interesting that Stephane's note doesn't address any
of the issues that occurred to me as a read through the draft
(perhaps another symptom of his having not read the draft).
For example, IDNs are inevitably a compromise with the rather
weak matching rules of the DNS, the absence of information about
language or other localization clues, etc.  One of the arguments
often given about keyword systems is that they can be localized,
taking advantage of language and other knowledge to permit name
structures and matching that are more suited to the needs of
local users.   This proposal, however, uses IDNA (RFC3490)
processing and encoding, which seems to discard that advantage.

    john

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:17:21 -0400

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:16:36AM +0800, zhangguoqiang wrote:

>  webpage, while IDN is used to access a web site. Second, keyword
>  eases user's experience by eliminating the need to remember
>  potentially great number of suffixes. 

That argument is a little odd: instead of the user needing to remember
a bounded number of suffixes, the user has to remember a completely
unbounded number of keywords.  Moreover, the user has to guess just
the right keyword for the particular site desired, since if keywords
are to be an addressing technology then the words in question have to
be unique to a destination.

This is not to dismiss the arguments for keywords, but I don't think
that it actually makes a user's experience any easier except in
peculiar cases.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:38:29 +0200

> specifies keyword-based addressing as a DDDS application.

OK, I've read the draft and here are my remarks.

First, the way I understand section 3.1, the fully-qualified keyword
will be something like cn:+huawei or cn:=li Correct?

If so, I seriously doubt it is simpler for users to type cn:+huawei
than huawei.cn. The draft seems to imply that country-codes could be
omitted when in a given country but the corean travelling to China
will have to remember to add kr: in front on every keyword he's used
to. It does not seem very convenient to me. Frankly, I do not see the
advantage over domain names.

There is a policy issue with the organization stricly by country: some
countries may wish to decline participation. And some people may wish
to use a system different than their national one.

Now, about the use of the DNS, guidance like "Clients are encouraged
to check for additional information but are not required to do so."
seem to contradict RFC 2181, section 5.4.1. Sentences like "Until all
resolvers can handle larger responses" are incorrect (the problem is
typically not in resolvers but in middleboxes, see the Nominet report,
for instance).

A nit: RFC 2396 has been replaced by RFC 3986.

---

From: "zhangguoqiang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:16:52 +0800

I'm summerzing our discussion now. So, Stephane Bortzmever, you opinion is that with IDN, manual domain name suffix configuration in browers and redirect, people can buy an IDN and achieve the same functionality as keyword?

At first, this sounds perfect. However, one problem remains. Since the intension of keywords is not only to point to a site, but also be capable to point directly to a webpage inside a site. In the keyword method, it is easy to buy more than one keywords and each pointing to a different webpage inside the site. However, with redirect method, it is much harder to do so. 

2009-04-17 

zhangguoqiang 

发件人： Stephane Bortzmeyer 

tinyurl.com

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:10:17 +0200

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:16:52PM +0800,
 zhangguoqiang <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 192 lines which said:

> you opinion is that with IDN, manual domain name suffix
> configuration in browers and redirect, 

I believe that such "implicit TLD" configuration is *possible*, but
I'm very skeptical that it would buy us anything. Keywords give you
the *illusion* of simplicity but you lose the power of domain names
(and of URIs).

Anyway, my own summary: I have nothing against the technical protocol
you suggest (NAPTR and so on), I would just prefer that dubious
marketing claims about "simplicity" be removed.