July 2017 - UA-discuss - lists.iana.org

Last Call - Comments on Computer Programming Language Evaluation Criteria
by Don Hollander July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

This is the last call for comments on the Computer Programming Language Evaluation Criteria which can be found https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A2UWHRnyUy4qYRR_QOSdNAwuiX-AuXwwIPat9xR… There have been some very good comments received to date. The Author is going to review and revise early next week, so please review if you’re going to. And, with respect to the Computer Programming Language review process, we’re planning on two calls in August. The first will review the final (hopefully) Evaluation Criteria Document The second will go over the experience to date in applying the Evaluation Criteria Document to three different libraries. Our current thinking is to have the calls around 20:00 UTC. This works reasonably well for people in Europe and the USA, but not well at all for those in Asia. We are happy to have a second call for other time zones if there’s interest – so if there is, please let me know. We’ll also record the calls for later playback – though not necessarily any visuals. Don

1 0

AUTO: Ahmed Bakhat Masood is out of the office. (returning 07/24/2017)
by Ahmed Bakhat Masood July 21, 2017

July 21, 2017

I am out of the office until 07/24/2017. I will not be able to respond to your mail. For urgent queries, please contact Mr. Shageel Ahmed Dy Director (ICT) at shargeel(a)pta.gov.pk or Mr. Anwar Zeb IT Officer at anwar(a)pta.gov.pk Note: This is an automated response to your message "UA-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 7" sent on 07/21/2017 5:00:04 PM. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.

1 0

Re: [UA-discuss] The 2017 Top Programming Languages - IEEE Spectrum
by Richard Merdinger July 20, 2017

July 20, 2017

Ada? Richard Merdinger VP, Domains - GoDaddy rmerdinger(a)godaddy.com<mailto:rmerdinger@godaddy.com> From: <ua-discuss-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss <UA-discuss(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Mark Svancarek <marksv(a)microsoft.com> Date: Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:15 AM To: Don Hollander <don.hollander(a)icann.org>, `tan tanakadennis via ua-discuss` <UA-discuss(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] The 2017 Top Programming Languages - IEEE Spectrum …and Lisp From: ua-discuss-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Hollander Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:59 PM To: `tan tanakadennis via ua-discuss` <UA-discuss(a)icann.org> Subject: [UA-discuss] The 2017 Top Programming Languages - IEEE Spectrum Personally, I’m please to see that Fortran remains in the list, though probably not so high on the UASG mitigation agenda. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-2017-top-programming-langua… The 2017 Top Programming Languages Python jumps to No. 1, and Swift enters the Top Ten By Stephen Cass<file:////author/cass-stephen> Posted 18 Jul 2017 | 19:00 GMT It’s summertime here at IEEE Spectrum, and that means it’s time for our fourth interactive ranking<file:////static/interactive-the-top-programming-languages-2017> of the top programming languages. As with all attempts to rank the usage of different languages, we have to rely on various proxies for popularity. In our case, this means having data journalist Nick Diakopoulos<http://www.nickdiakopoulos.com/> mine and combine 12 metrics from 10 carefully chosen online sources to rank 48 languages. But where we really differ from other rankings is that our interactive allows you choose how those metrics are weighted when they are combined, letting you personalize the rankings to your needs. We have a few preset weightings—a default setting that’s designed with the typical Spectrum reader in mind, as well as settings that emphasize emerging languages, what employers are looking for, and what’s hot in open source. You can also filter out industry sectors that don’t interest you or create a completely customized ranking and make a comparison with a previous year. So what are the Top Ten Languages for the typical Spectrum reader? [creen shot of the TPL app]<file:////static/interactive-the-top-programming-languages-2017> Python<https://www.python.org/> has continued its upward trajectory from last year and jumped two places to the No. 1 slot, though the top four—Python, C<http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/3e/docs/chistory.html>, Java<https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/language/index.html>, and C++<https://isocpp.org/>—all remain very close in popularity. Indeed, in Diakopoulos’s analysis of what the underlying metrics have to say about the languages currently in demand by recruiting companies, C comes out ahead of Python by a good margin. C#<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/csharp> has reentered the top five, taking back the place it lost to R<https://www.r-project.org/> last year. Ruby has fallen all the way down to 12th position, but in doing so it has given Apple’s Swift<https://developer.apple.com/swift/> the chance to join Google’s Go<https://golang.org/> in the Top Ten. This is impressive, as Swift debuted on the rankings just two years ago. (Outside the Top Ten, Apple’s Objective-C<https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/…> mirrors the ascent of Swift, dropping down to 26th place.) However, for the second year in a row, no new languages have entered the rankings. We seem to have entered a period of consolidation in coding as programmers digest the tools created to cater to the explosion of cloud, mobile, and big data applications. Speaking of stabilized programming tools and languages, it’s worth noting Fortran<http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/HomePage>’s continued presence right in the middle of the rankings (sitting still in 28th place), along with Lisp<http://www.cliki.net/> in 35th place and Cobol<https://open-cobol.sourceforge.io/> hanging in at 40th: Clearly even languages that are decades old can still have sustained levels of interest. (And although it just barely clears the threshold for inclusion in our rankings, I’m pleased to see that my personal favorite veteran language—Forth<https://www.forth.com/resources/forth-programming-language/>—is still there in 47th place). Looking at the preset weighting option for open source projects, where we might expect a bias toward newer projects versus decades-old legacy systems, we see that HTML<https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/> has entered the Top Ten there, rising from 11th place to 8th. (This is a great moment for us to reiterate our response to the complaint of some in years past of “HTML isn’t a programming language, it’s just markup.” At Spectrum, we have a very pragmatic view about what is, and isn’t, a recognizable programming language. HTML is used by coders to instruct computers to do things, so we include it. We don’t insist on, for example, Turing completeness as a threshold for inclusion—and to get really nitpicky, as user Jonny Lin pointed out last year, HTML has grown so complex that when combined with CSS, it is now Turing complete, albeit with a little prodding<http://eli.fox-epste.in/rule110-full.html> and requiring an appreciation of cellular automata.<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rule110.html>) Finally, one last technical detail: We’ve made some tweaks under the hood to improve the robustness of the results, especially for less popular languages where the signals in the metrics are weaker and so more prone to statistical noise. So that users who look at historical data can make consistent comparisons, we’ve recalculated the previous year’s rankings with the new system. This could lead to some discrepancies between a language’s ranking in a given year as currently shown, versus the ranking that was shown in the original year of publication, but such differences should be relatively small and not affect the more popular languages in any case. Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander

1 0

The 2017 Top Programming Languages - IEEE Spectrum
by Don Hollander July 20, 2017

July 20, 2017

Personally, I’m please to see that Fortran remains in the list, though probably not so high on the UASG mitigation agenda. > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-2017-top-programming-langua… <http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-2017-top-programming-langua…> > > The 2017 Top Programming Languages > Python jumps to No. 1, and Swift enters the Top Ten > > By Stephen Cass </author/cass-stephen>Posted 18 Jul 2017 | 19:00 GMT > It’s summertime here at IEEE Spectrum, and that means it’s time for our fourth interactive ranking </static/interactive-the-top-programming-languages-2017> of the top programming languages. As with all attempts to rank the usage of different languages, we have to rely on various proxies for popularity. In our case, this means having data journalist Nick Diakopoulos <http://www.nickdiakopoulos.com/> mine and combine 12 metrics from 10 carefully chosen online sources to rank 48 languages. But where we really differ from other rankings is that our interactive allows you choose how those metrics are weighted when they are combined, letting you personalize the rankings to your needs. > > We have a few preset weightings—a default setting that’s designed with the typical Spectrum reader in mind, as well as settings that emphasize emerging languages, what employers are looking for, and what’s hot in open source. You can also filter out industry sectors that don’t interest you or create a completely customized ranking and make a comparison with a previous year. > > So what are the Top Ten Languages for the typical Spectrum reader? > > </static/interactive-the-top-programming-languages-2017> > Python <https://www.python.org/> has continued its upward trajectory from last year and jumped two places to the No. 1 slot, though the top four—Python, C <http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/3e/docs/chistory.html>, Java <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/language/index.html>, and C++ <https://isocpp.org/>—all remain very close in popularity. Indeed, in Diakopoulos’s analysis of what the underlying metrics have to say about the languages currently in demand by recruiting companies, C comes out ahead of Python by a good margin. > > C# <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/csharp> has reentered the top five, taking back the place it lost to R <https://www.r-project.org/> last year. Ruby has fallen all the way down to 12th position, but in doing so it has given Apple’s Swift <https://developer.apple.com/swift/> the chance to join Google’s Go <https://golang.org/> in the Top Ten. This is impressive, as Swift debuted on the rankings just two years ago. (Outside the Top Ten, Apple’s Objective-C <https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/…> mirrors the ascent of Swift, dropping down to 26th place.) > > However, for the second year in a row, no new languages have entered the rankings. We seem to have entered a period of consolidation in coding as programmers digest the tools created to cater to the explosion of cloud, mobile, and big data applications. > > Speaking of stabilized programming tools and languages, it’s worth noting Fortran <http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/HomePage>’s continued presence right in the middle of the rankings (sitting still in 28th place), along with Lisp <http://www.cliki.net/> in 35th place and Cobol <https://open-cobol.sourceforge.io/> hanging in at 40th: Clearly even languages that are decades old can still have sustained levels of interest. (And although it just barely clears the threshold for inclusion in our rankings, I’m pleased to see that my personal favorite veteran language—Forth <https://www.forth.com/resources/forth-programming-language/>—is still there in 47th place). > > Looking at the preset weighting option for open source projects, where we might expect a bias toward newer projects versus decades-old legacy systems, we see that HTML <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/> has entered the Top Ten there, rising from 11th place to 8th. (This is a great moment for us to reiterate our response to the complaint of some in years past of “HTML isn’t a programming language, it’s just markup.” At Spectrum, we have a very pragmatic view about what is, and isn’t, a recognizable programming language. HTML is used by coders to instruct computers to do things, so we include it. We don’t insist on, for example, Turing completeness as a threshold for inclusion—and to get really nitpicky, as user Jonny Lin pointed out last year, HTML has grown so complex that when combined with CSS, it is now Turing complete, albeit with a little prodding <http://eli.fox-epste.in/rule110-full.html> and requiring an appreciation of cellular automata. <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rule110.html>) > > Finally, one last technical detail: We’ve made some tweaks under the hood to improve the robustness of the results, especially for less popular languages where the signals in the metrics are weaker and so more prone to statistical noise. So that users who look at historical data can make consistent comparisons, we’ve recalculated the previous year’s rankings with the new system. This could lead to some discrepancies between a language’s ranking in a given year as currently shown, versus the ranking that was shown in the original year of publication, but such differences should be relatively small and not affect the more popular languages in any case. > Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander

2 1

UA Programming Language Evaluation Criteria - V0.98
by Don Hollander July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Here’s an update as to where we’re at with the UASG Open Source Programming Language Review and Mitigation efforts. 1) We put out the Help Wanted ad early last year and received four reasonable responses. We worked to engage with all four. 2) In the end because of a variety of reasons - inability to agree to a contract, the amount of time it took to agree to a contract, the amount of time it took to take the first step, etc we’ve ended with one participant in the project. 3) We’ve had a couple of discussions on the nature of the Evaluation Criteria. Comments have been taken into account as have experiences derived from the review of three frameworks to create the latest version of the Evaluation Criteria. This is now available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A2UWHRnyUy4qYRR_QOSdNAwuiX-AuXwwIPat9xR… It is certainly more extensive. Comments are very much welcome and if there’s interest we can have a call in early August to go through the document collectively. The next steps: a) We’ll have a call in August to go through the evaluation process and results of the three frameworks reviewed (and a separate call on the Evaluation Criteria if there’s interest) b) We’ll look to have another Help Wanted process to allow others to participate now that we have better clarity. c) We’ll also look at a Bug Bounty program to help accelerate remediation. If you have comments or questions, please let me know. Don Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander

1 0

Contacts wanted in a Computer Society near you...
by Don Hollander July 14, 2017

July 14, 2017

As we work to get the word about Universal Acceptance and EAI out to the developer community, we want to reach out through the following organisations. If you are a member or know someone in the organisations, would you please contact Andrew Robertson Andrew.Robertson(a)edelman.com directly? And if you have others that you think would be useful, let Andrew know those too. Thanks. UASG Target Associations (revised July 2017) Hong Kong Hong Kong Computer Society Hong Kong Information Technology Federation (HKITF) India National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) (India) Japan Japan Information Technology Services Industry Association (JISA) Korea Corporate IT Forum Malaysia Malaysian National Computer Federation Pakistan Pakistan Software Export Board Pakistan Software Houses Association Sri Lanka Computer Society of Sri Lanka Thailand The Association of Thai ICT Industry (ATCI) (Thailand) Armenia Armenian Union of Information Technology Enterprises (UITE) Egypt Egyptian Information, Telecommunications, Electronics and Software Alliance (EITESAL) France CIGREF – France Société informatique de France Hungary Magyarországi Vezető Informatikusok Szövetsége – Hungary Hungarian Association of IT Companies (IVSZ)

5 4

Recall: .TOP blocked in Microsoft Corpnet
by Mark Svancarek July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Mark Svancarek would like to recall the message, ".TOP blocked in Microsoft Corpnet".

1 0

.TOP blocked in Microsoft Corpnet
by Mark Svancarek July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Just discovered that our IT policy is to block the entirety of .TOP due to malware. Investigating. From: xxxxx Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:28 PM To: Mark Svancarek <marksv(a)microsoft.com> Cc: xxxxx Subject: RE: Why is this page blocked? Hi Mark, Due to the increased usage of .TOP based sites by multiple malware (including Ransomware like Cerber), DSRE blocked access to the .TOP sites from the Microsoft Corporate Machines. Should you prefer to access the below given site, request you to use other alternatives [for example, you would be able to access the site from an Azure machine]. Let me know if you have any further queries. Regards, Jagadeesh. P [cid:image001.jpg@01D2FBBA.4E666D30] xxxxx Senior Security Analyst | Information Security Monitoring Services [cid:image002.jpg@01D2FBBA.4E666D30]<tel:+9104066933605> [cid:image003.jpg@01D2FBBA.4E666D30] <mailto:jparames@microsoft.com> [cid:image004.jpg@01D2FBBA.4E666D30] <sip:jparames@microsoft.com> Digital Security & Risk Engineering<https://microsoft.sharepoint.com/sites/isrm/Pages/default.aspx> | Core Engineering & Services Working Hours: 09.00AM – 06.00PM IST From: Mark Svancarek Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:08 PM To: xxxxx Subject: Why is this page blocked? I am trying to access this IRL http://اختبار-القبولالعالمي.top And I have received the following error message: [cid:image013.jpg@01D2FBBA.4E666D30] You can see the expected contents of the destination site, below. It’s affiliated with an Internet community group to which we belong, and it should be completely safe. Why is it blocked? [cid:image001.png@01D2F64A.4AF2BAC0]

2 1

FW: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt
by Mark Svancarek July 6, 2017

July 6, 2017

FYI, too much stuff from John for me to dig into this a.m. -----Original Message----- From: Idna-update [mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 8:25 AM To: idna-update(a)alvestrand.no Subject: FWD: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt Hi. For the information of those who may be watching this list but not the IETF announcement one... Asmus Freytag and I have started to put together a draft that addresses a problem with the IDNA2008 specs, specifically that we failed to make the responsibility of registries to define code point and label acceptability rules that were considerably more narrow (and better understood by them) than the full set of labels allowed by RFC 5891-5893. It doesn't actually change anything because that requirement is in the existing specs; it just makes (or tries to make) the requirements painfully clear to those who have been missing or misreading them. It also provides an explicit link between IDNA2008 requirements and ICANN work on repertoires and label generation rules without endorsing that work as more than one thoughtful approach that might be examined for either reference or inspiration. Comments (obviously) welcome. For anyone who might wonder, this document avoids the more controversial IDNA2008 issues including: * Multiple suggestions that we should add emoji, a subset of code points with General Category "So", to the list of code points allowed by IDNA. There are many reasons to not do that but it seems clear that, at some point, the IETF will need to either document those reasons or make the change. Volunteers to put together or work on a document would be welcome. * The non-decomposing code point problem, formerly (and incorrectly) known as the Hamza problem. There has been no discernable activity on this since the IAB Statement and LUCID BOF almost exactly two years ago. I've further updated the working copy of draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70 to cover additional cases and issues, but, in part because it is clearly inappropriate for a quick-patch individual submission, have been advised to not post it until we have a plan to make progress. So far, there is no such plan. * The (IMO, growing) problem of multiple and inconsistent specifications for IDNs and IDN handling, with different ones being used in different higher-level protocols and areas of the Internet. The use of different specifications and definitions creates opportunities for user and implementer confusion, interoperability difficulties, domain names that cannot be resolved under some circumstances, and various sorts of attacks. The specifications involved include IDNA2008, IDNA2003, assorted local "updates" to IDNA2003 that use versions of Stringprep locally updated to assorted versions of Unicode, and the various versions of UTR#46. The latest version of the latter explicitly allows emoji along with other symbols. A few months ago, I suggested to the IAB I18N program that a document be produced that at least pointed out the problems associated with multiple divergent specifications, but the idea got no traction. It appears to me that, although almost everyone agrees that IDNs, and well- and clearly-functional IDNs, are important, virtually no one is willing to do the hard work, at least unless they are being supported by ICANN (disclosure: I am not) or organizations whose interests lie in selling names, preferably as many of them as possible (I have no support from any of them either). Until and unless that changes, I don't see much prospect for getting those other issues addressed in a way that might lead to consensus documents. john ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Saturday, March 11, 2017 07:22 -0800 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: i-d-announce(a)ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Registry Restrictions and Recommendations Authors : John C Klensin Asmus Freytag Filename : draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2017-03-11 Abstract: The IDNA specifications for internationalized domain names combine rules that determine the labels that are allowed in the DNS without violating the protocol itself and an assignment of responsibility, consistent with earlier specifications, for determining the labels that are allowed in particular zones. Conformance to IDNA by registries and other implementations requires both parts. Experience strongly suggests that the language describing those responsibility was insufficiently clear to promote safe and interoperable use of the specifications and that more details and some specific examples would have been helpful. This specification updates the earlier ones to provide that guidance and to correct some technical errors in the descriptions. It does not alter the protocols and rules themselves in any way. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- _______________________________________________ Idna-update mailing list Idna-update(a)alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

8 10

Contacts Wanted...
by Don Hollander July 5, 2017

July 5, 2017

G’day: I’m looking for contacts in the following organisations: Opera Browser Vivaldi Browser Samsung Browser Yahoo Email Nazwa - a Polish Registrar If you know anyone, or know someone who might know someone, would you please contact me off-list? Thanks. Don Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander

1 0