It's not an RFC, it's an Internet Draft (which anyone can submit without review), and anyway it's offensive and incoherent enough that nobody will take it seriously, and it certainly won't make it as an actual RFC.
Proposals to fragment the Internet generally do not go down well, for obvious reasons.
The proposal is needlessly complicated, notwithstanding the poor quality of writing. The authors' rationale is to "realize autonomy", yet AIP suffixes are globally namespaced and still need IANA assignment, which is really no different to the current situation in relation to TLDs. It breaks backwards compatibility when applications need to cross AIP networks and also introduces the issue of conflicting AIP network-internal names. The authors make no attempt to discuss these obvious issues or any others, and also blindly wave off security considerations, saying "there is no additional security requirement".
Also, the authors are on Yahoo/QQ free webmail addresses, which isn't very professional.
Phone number style email addresses are quite common in China.
I assume it's because you can't have unicode email address? (can you?) And there are only a hundred or so different names (in pinyin without tone marks)...
>And there are only a hundred or so different names (in pinyin without tone marks)...
My instinct tell me that's not correct. So I did the calculation:) From the ancient Chinese surname document "百家姓" [1], there're more than 500 hundreds surnames listed. And by removing the tone marks, I got 295 unique surnames in pinyin. But these are just surnames commonly used thousand years ago. Multiple by thousands unique first names, I believe that there're at least hundreds of thousands different names in pinyin.
Of course this is still far less than the number of different names in western countries. But it's not the main reason that some people in China use number style email addresses.
I can't speak to the offensive end, but it is an RFC draft proposal, and the author seems to be missing a lot of in/definite articles in his writing. It does make parts of it less coherent.
At least they took the time to write it in English. Considering how much effort the inventors and maintainers of the DNS put into supporting non-ASCII languages like Chinese I think that's pretty good, even if they missed a few articles.
Sure the motivation is may be imposed by politics, but if it were your job to implement such network segmentation then this is a reasonably rational way to go about it.
It is, of course, contrary to the fundamental principle of the internet.
thanks for the clarification, I was unsure about the intentions of the authors and their capability to implement this proposal. however this doesn't rule out the possibility that China does in fact implement such a system.
