Subject: [apps-discuss] new work being considered: lager: label generation rules

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 22:22:51 +0100

Hello,
 this is some new work that is being considered and we would like to get your input. 

Regards, Marc.

===================================
wg Acronym: lager  (Label Generation Rules)

Domain registries, particularly those implementing IDNA (RFC 5890 et.al),
usually maintain a set of criteria (or "ruleset") that governs permissible
labels allowed for registration, such as [IANAIDNTABLES]. 
These rulesets are commonly a mixture of eligible code points along 
with contextual criteria that must be met
concerning the positioning of certain code points. Some registries also
specify rules regarding variant labels and how they are to be handled.
Domain registries commonly need to share these rules, but there is no
interoperable format that can be used that can support many common use cases.
This group seeks to produce such a format, which will enable re-use and
simpler implementation of rulesets in registries.

A comprehensive format specification has been developed, named Label
Generation Rules, primarily to support the rules to be used for the 
DNS Root Zone [Davies]. This group will use this specification as a 
starting point to develop a common XML language that provides a superset 
of functionality of current specifications
[RFC 3743, RFC 4290, et.al], along with other known use cases. This single
format is expected to supersede existing formats, and form the basis for
future rulesets used at different levels of the DNS hierarchy.

Work items:
- Standard Track Specification of the Label Generation Rules

References:
[Davies] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-idntables/
[IANAIDNTABLES] https://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables <https://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables>

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 19:42:29 -0400

>  this is some new work that is being considered and we would like to get

Please pick a name that doesn't already mean something else popular.  Trying 
to search for information about lager probably won't get the result people 
want unless they are interested in beer.

Scott K

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 May 2015 03:20:46 -0000

>future rulesets used at different levels of the DNS hierarchy.

Who are the expected users of this super XML schema?  I know that
ICANN has an RFP out for tools using the current LGR draft.  Anyone
else?

R's,
John

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 09:14:27 +0100

> Le 2015-05-06 à 04:20, John Levine <[email-masked]> a écrit :
> 

thanks for the very good question. So this work will enable people to specify (and therefore verify) the rules for valid labels. The first near term use is for the root zone. In this context, anyone who wants to verify if a label is valid (i.e. whatever it is actually a delegated label or not) would be a target user, therefore many people within the registration ecosystem. This work is also a framework for specifying variants, which are identified as blocked or allocatable. In this context, verify if a label is allocatable is also useful for parties in the registration system. Moreover, it is envisionned that this technology could also be used for any level such as second levels. So potentially many parties in the registration ecosystem.

Regards, Marc.

---

From: Phil Lello <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 08:07:22 +0100

> want unless they are interested in beer.

Is that a huge issue? The IETF already has, for example, the Kitten WG (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/kitten/charter/), which is a top result for
"IETF kitten" (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ietf+kitten), but not
"kitten" (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kitten)

Phil

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 19:56:50 -0400

> "kitten" (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kitten)

Huge issue, no, but a number of people, myself included, aren't fond of the 
IETF doing this.  There's all kinds of examples (lemonade is another one) and 
it makes things harder later when one is trying to understand what went 
before.

Scott K

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 17:51:03 -0700

> want unless they are interested in beer.

So, you wouldn't consider it to be an improvement if they instead chose:

   Allowed Label Entries ?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:09:38 -0400

On Thursday, May 07, 2015 05:51:03 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Please pick a name that doesn't already mean something else popular. 
> > Trying to search for information about lager probably won't get the
> > result people want unless they are interested in beer.
> 

No.  Basic Extensible Entity Rules wouldn't be better either.

Scott K

---

From: Kim Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 16:07:42 +0000

> On May 6, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 

Some further thoughts on this, in addition to its use specifically for the DNS root zone:

1. The majority of TLD registries that support IDNs disclose — either voluntarily or by contract — the “IDN tables” they use for domain registries. Experience to date is those provided are a mix of formats, plus a lot of the associated business rules are either omitted, or described in a narrative form that is not conducive to easy re-use. This format in intended to provide a common form for doing so, providing for greater ability to re-use and compare.

2. We maintain an “IDN practices repository”, effectively a list of provided IDN tables, on the IANA website. I expect that if the format is finalised we will aim to migrate the existing corpus of tables to the new format.

3. ICANN is also looking into engage researchers to developing model rulesets for different languages, upon which registries could base their policies. These would be provided in  this format.

4. Having a standard way of documenting these kinds of rules will allow registry operators to, rather than hard-coding business logic into their registry platforms as many do today, implement a generic engine that simply understands the LGR format. Then for each new zone, it can be paired with an LGR file, which will be used to assess eligibility of new labels. It can move the ruleset from being something today that registry operators export as an afterthought, to being a primary element a registry assesses policy.

5. I think it is worth also considering that the specification is not intended to be limited to the DNS, even though that is the primary intended use. We’ve tried to write the specification to date such that you could us it for assessing any kind of candidate labels or identifiers against a set of rules. As one example, you could use it to assess username eligibility in a system.

kim