[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4713

Network Working Group                                             X. LEE
Internet-Draft                                                   E. CHEN
Intended status: Standards Track                              J. KLENSIN
Expires: January 31, 2007                                         N. HSU
                                                                  W. MAO
                                                           July 30, 2006


Registration and Administration Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names
                    draft-xdlee-idn-cdnadmin-08.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 31, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).












LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


Abstract

   Many Chinese characters in common use have variants, which makes most
   of the Chinese Domain Names (CDN) have at least two different forms.
   The equivalence between Simplified Chinese (SC) and Traditional
   Chinese (TC) characters is very important for CDN registration.  This
   memo builds on the basic concepts, general guidelines, and framework
   of RFC 3743 to specify proposed registration and administration
   procedures for Chinese domain names.  The document provides the
   information needed for understanding and using the tables defined in
   the IANA table registrations for Simplified and Traditional Chinese.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Chinese Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Chinese Domain Name Label (CDNL) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Simplified Chinese Variant Table (SCVT)  . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.4.  Traditional Chinese Variant Table (TCVT) . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.5.  Original Chinese Domain Name Label (OCDNL) . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Procedure for registration of Chinese Domain Name Labels . . .  5
     3.1.  Terminology and Context  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Procedure in terms of the RFC 3743 model . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  RFC 3743 Optional Registry Processing  . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11


















LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


1.  Introduction

   With the standardization of Internationalized Domain Names for
   Application (IDNA, described in [RFC3490], [RFC3491] and [RFC3492]),
   internationalized domain names (IDNs), i.e., those that contain non-
   ASCII characters, are included in the DNS, and users can access
   Internet with their native languages, most of which are not English.
   However, many languages have special requirements, which are not
   addressed in the IDNA RFCs.  One way to deal with some of the
   remaining issues involves grouping characters that could be confused
   together as "variants".  The variant approach is discussed in RFC
   4290 [RFC4290] and specifically for documents written in Chinese,
   Japanese, or Korean (CJK documents), in the so-called "JET
   Guidelines" RFC 3743 [RFC3743].  Readers of this document are assumed
   to be familiar with the concepts and terminology of the latter.  The
   guidelines specified in this document provide a set of specific
   tables and methods required to apply the JET Guidelines to Chinese
   characters.  For example, changes were made in the forms of a large
   number of Chinese characters during the last century to simplify
   writing and reading.  These "Simplified" character have been adopted
   in some Chinese-speaking communities, while others continue to use
   the "Traditional" forms.  On the global Internet, if IDNA were used
   alone, there would be considerable potential for confusion if the two
   forms were not considered together.  Consequently, effective use of
   Chinese domain names (CDNs) requires variant equivalence, as
   described in RFC 3743, to handle character differences between
   Simplified and Traditional Chinese forms.

   Chinese variant equivalence itself is very complicated in principle
   (please read [C2C] for further information).  When it comes to the
   usage of Chinese domain names, the basic requirement is to match the
   user perception of Chinese characters between Simplified Chinese (SC)
   and Traditional Chinese (TC) forms.  When users register SC or TC
   domain names, they will wish to obtain the other form (Traditional or
   Simplified respectively) as well, and expect others to be able to
   access the website or other resource in both forms.

   This document specifies a solution for Chinese domain name
   registration and administration that has been adopted and deployed by
   CNNIC (the top-level domain registry for "CN") and TWNIC (the top-
   level domain registry for "TW") to manage Simplified Chinese and
   Traditional Chinese domain name equivalence.  In the terminology of
   RFC 3743, this solution is based on Internationalized Domain Labels
   (IDLs).







LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


2.  Terminology

   This document adopts the terminologies that are defined in RFC 3743.
   It is not possible to understand this document without first
   understanding the concepts and terminology or RFC 3743, including
   terminology introduced in its examples.  Additional terminology is
   defined later in this document.

2.1.  Chinese Characters

   This document suggests permitting only a subset of Chinese characters
   in Chinese Domain Names (CDNs) and hence in the DNS.  When this
   document discusses Chinese characters, it only refers to the subset
   of the characters in the first column of the current IANA
   registration tables for Chinese as discussed in Section 2.3 and
   Section 2.4.  Of course, characters excluded from these tables are
   still valid Chinese characters.  However, this document strongly
   suggests that registries do not permit any registration of Chinese
   characters that are not listed in the tables.  The tables themselves
   will be updated in the future if necessary.

2.2.  Chinese Domain Name Label (CDNL)

   If an IDN label includes at least one Chinese character, it is called
   a Chinese Domain Name (CDN) Label.  CDN labels may contain characters
   from the traditional letter-digit-hyphen (LDH) set as well as Chinese
   characters.

2.3.  Simplified Chinese Variant Table (SCVT)

   Based on RFC 3743, [RFC3743] a language table for Simplified Chinese
   has been defined [LVT-SC].  It can be used for the registration of
   Simplified Chinese domain names.  The key feature of this table is
   that the preferred variant is the SC character, which is used by
   Mainland China users or defined in Chinese related standards.

2.4.  Traditional Chinese Variant Table (TCVT)

   Similarly, a language table has been defined for Traditional Chinese
   [LVT-TC].  It is also based on the rules of RFC 3743.  It can be used
   for registration of Traditional Chinese domain names.  The preferred
   variant is the TC character, which is used in Taiwan or defined in
   related standards.

2.5.  Original Chinese Domain Name Label (OCDNL)

   The Chinese Domain Name Label that users submit for registration.




LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


3.  Procedure for registration of Chinese Domain Name Labels

3.1.  Terminology and Context

   This document adopts the same procedure for Chinese Domain Name Label
   (CDNL) registration as the one defined for more general IDN labels in
   section 3.2.3 of RFC 3743 [RFC3743].  The terminology and notation
   used below, and the steps that are mentioned, derive from that
   document.  In particular, "CV" is the character variant associated an
   input character ("IN") and a language table.  The language tables
   used here are those for Chinese as spoken and written in the Chinese
   Mainland (ZH-CN) and on Taiwan (ZH-TW).  "PV" is the selected
   Preferred Variant.

3.2.  Procedure in terms of the RFC 3743 model

   The first column of the Simplified Chinese Variant Table (SCVT) is
   the same as the first column of the corresponding Traditional Chinese
   Variant Table (TCVT) and so are the third columns of both tables.
   Consequently, the CV(IN, ZH-CN) will be same as the CV(IN, ZH-TW)
   after Step 3; The PV(IN, ZH-CN) is in SC form, and the PV(IN, ZH-TW)
   is in TC form.  As a result, there will be not more than three record
   (i.e., the ones for the original label (OCDNL), the Simplified
   Chinese (SC) form, and the Traditional Chinese (TC) form) to be added
   into the zone file after applying this procedure.  In other words,
   the procedure does not generate labels that contain a mixture of
   Simplified and Traditional Chinese as variants.

   The set of languages associated with the input (IN) is both ZH-CN and
   ZH-TW by default.  The procedure for CDNL registration uses the
   optional registry-defined rules for which provision in made in RFC
   3743 for optional processing, with the understanding that the rules
   may vary for different registries supporting Chinese domain names.
   The motivation for such rules is described below.

   The preferred variant(s) is/are TC in TCVT, and SC in SCVT.  There
   may be more than one preferred variant for a given valid character.

3.3.  RFC 3743 Optional Registry Processing

   In actuality, while IDNA, and hence RFC 3743, process characters one
   at a time, the actual relationship between the valid code point and
   the preferred variant is contextual: whether one character can be
   substituted for another depends on the characters with which it is
   associated in a label or, more generally, in a phrase.  In
   particular, some of the preferred variants make no sense in
   combination with other characters; therefore, those combinations
   should not be added into the Zone file (described as "ZV" or zone



LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


   variants in RFC 3743).  If desired, it should be possible to define
   and implement rules to reduce the preferred variant labels to only
   plausible ones.  This could be done, for example, with some
   artificial intelligence tools, or with feedback from the registrant,
   or with selection based on frequency of occurrence in other texts.
   To illustrate one possibility, the OCDNL could be required to be TC-
   only or SC-only, and if there are more than one preferred variants,
   the OCDNL will be used as the PV, instead of PV produced by the
   algorithm.

   To reemphasize, the tables in [LVT-SC] and [LVT-TC] follow the table
   format and terminologies defined in [RFC3743].  If one intends to
   implement Chinese domain name registrations based on these two tables
   or ones similar to them, a complete understanding of RFC 3743 is
   needed for the proper use of those tables.




































LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


4.  Security Considerations

   This document is subject to the same security considerations as
   RFC3743, which defines the table formats and operations.  As with
   that base document, part of its intent is to reduce the security
   problems that might be caused by confusion among characters with
   similar appearances or meanings.  While it will not introduce any
   additional security issues, additional registration restrictions such
   as those outlined in Section 3 may further reduce potential problems.










































LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


5.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks for these person's suggestions, promotions and efforts on such
   tough work: WANG YanFeng, Ai-Chin LU, Shian-Shyong TSENG, QIAN
   HuaLin, and Li-Ming TSENG.

   Especially, thanks Joe ZHANG and XiaoMing WANG for their outstanding
   contributions on SCVT in [LVT-SC].  And also thanks Kenny HUANG,
   Zheng-Wei LIN, Shi-Xiong TSENG, Lie-Neng WU, Cheng-Wu PAN, Lin-Mei
   WEI, Qi-Qing HSU for their efforts and contributions on editing the
   TCVT in [LVT-TC].  These experts provided basic materials, or gave
   very crucial suggestions and principles to accomplish these two
   variant tables.

   And that, the authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of
   those who commented and make suggestions on this document, including
   James SENG, and other JET members.


































LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [LVT-SC]   QIAN, H. and X. LEE, ".CN Chinese Character Table",
              IANA IDN Languages Tables, March 2005.

   [LVT-TC]   LU, A., ".TW Traditional Chinese Character Table",
              IANA IDN Languages Tables, March 2005.

   [RFC3490]  Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
              "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 3490, March 2003.

   [RFC3491]  Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
              Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
              RFC 3491, March 2003.

   [RFC3492]  Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
              for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.

   [RFC3743]  KONISHI, K., HUANG, K., QIAN, H., and Y. KO, "Joint
              Engineering Team (JET) Guidelines for Internationalized
              Domain Names (IDN) Registration and Administration for
              Chinese, Japanese, and Korean", RFC 3743, April 2004.

6.2.  Informative References

   [C2C]      Halpern, J. and J. Kerman, "Pitfalls and Complexities of
              Chinese to Chinese Conversion", International Unicode
              Conference (14th) in Boston, March 1999.

   [RFC4290]  Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of
              Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290,
              December 2005.















LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


Authors' Addresses

   LEE Xiaodong
   CNNIC, No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing  100080

   Phone: +86 10 58813020
   Email: lee@cnnic.cn
   URI:   http://www.cnnic.cn


   Erin CHEN
   TWNIC, 4F-2, No. 9, Sec. 2, Roosevelt Rd.
   Taipei  100

   Phone: +886 2 23411313
   Email: erin@twnic.net.tw
   URI:   http://www.twnic.net.tw


   John C KLENSIN
   1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
   Cambridge, MA  02140
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 491 5735
   Email: john+ietf@jck.com


   Nai-Wen HSU
   TWNIC, 4F-2, No. 9, Sec. 2, Roosevelt Rd.
   Taipei  100

   Phone: +886 2 23411313
   Email: snw@twnic.net.tw
   URI:   http://www.twnic.net.tw


   MAO Wei
   CNNIC, No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing  100080

   Phone: +86 10 58813055
   Email: mao@cnnic.cn
   URI:   http://www.cnnic.cn






LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names       July 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





LEE, et al.             Expires January 31, 2007               [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/