Internet Resource Name Search Service BOF (irnss) Monday, December 10 at 1030-1130 ================================== CHAIRS: John Klensin DESCRIPTION: Abstract This BOF will examine some of the "above DNS" options and alternatives for solving problems with Internationalization and Internationalized access to DNS names and related Internet resources. It will use a collection of existing documents as the starting point for any subsequent working group or other efforts. Introduction Examination of Internationalization and other issues with the DNS has lead many members of the Internet community to the conclusion that the DNS is being expected to serve roles and support functions for which it is, by design, profoundly unsuitable [1]. While not the only issue, the two of these desired functions that have received the most attention to date is the effort to internationalize domain names [2] and the demand that the Internet's primary naming systems be sensitive to the requirements of national and international trademark law and practices [3]. In that context, strong requirements have been expressed that require sensitivity to language issues (not merely the sequences of characters/ code points on which the DNS is based), ability to differentiate names by locale and area of applicability (such as line of business). Variations in spelling, case matching, or character representations or similarities also call for a system with some "search and match" capability, rather than merely the strict lookup capability of the DNS. And, while the requirement for global uniqueness of network identifiers (such as is the case with the DNS) remains critical to a seamless, interconnected, Internet, there are clearly requirements for named resource searches that are completely sensitive to local (or national or regional or topical) issues and requirements. A general architectural model for such a system, using a layered model and incorporating the existing DNS for the functions for which it was designed and works well was outlined in [4]. This model posits two new search mechanisms for finding resources: * A multihierarchical, faceted, global search system * A collection of localized search systems (corresponding roughly to yellow pages services that may be separated by topic as well as by location) These are described as "sublayer 2" and "sublayer 3" in [5]. [6] is a specific proposal for implementing the sublayer 2 service using CNRP [7]. This BOF will consist of: * A brief review of the three [sub]layer model and the relationship among the layers. * Exploration of sublayer 2 options, using [6] as a base. * Discussion of whether or not to standardize sublayer 3 and, if so, what elements of it. * Planning a schedule for fleshing out sublayer 2 and developing further documents. It is assumed that the framework document (now [5]) and its successors will remain a design team effort, eventually progressing into an Informational or BCP document by four week last call. It is also assumed that, if standardization or further framework efforts are needed within sublayer 2 or 3, these will be done as separate, per-sublayer, working groups. Candidate tasks at sublayer 2: (i) Determination of the minimal facet set and determination mechanisms / registries for the controlled vocabulary facets. (ii) Decisions about search mechanisms (e.g., CNRP or otherwise) and appropriate details. (iii) Understanding and details of distribution, mirroring, and caching of data. Agenda: (Sharing slot with the Applications Area meeting at 0900 on Monday) Agenda review and bashing (5 minutes) Introduction and overview (Klensin, circa 10 minutes) SLS (Mealling and Daigle, circa 15 minutes) Where keywords fit in the system (Arrouye et al, circa 15 minutes) Location of directory services (Hoffman, five minutes) This leaves a lot of time for discussion, which is the general idea. As mentioned on a few mailing lists already, the intent is to minimize "presentations" and focus on discussion; the BOF is likely to be incomprehensible to anyone who is not reasonably familiar with the documents and mailing list discussion and _no_ time will be allocated to explaining things to those who are unprepared. Notes: [1] See draft-klensin-dns-role-01.txt for a more extended discussion and RFC 2825 for some additional discussion. [2] E.g., the efforts of the IDN WG and a number of efforts outside the IETF, including MINC, an ICANN Committee, and internationalization or localization efforts in a number of countries. [3] See, e.g., the discussions of Domain Name trademark issues and dispute resolution policies at http://ecommerce.wipo.org/. [4] See RFC 2826. [5] draft-klensin-dns-search-03.txt (forthcoming, RSN) [6] draft-mealling-sls-00.txt [7] Popp, N., M. Mealling, L. Masinter, K. Sollins. "Context and Goals for Common Name Resolution", RFC 2972. October 2000.