Re: [apps-discuss] Non-English reading lists (was: Re: Request to publish draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 10 June 2011 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09C99E8009 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ccsfQXTgtG84 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E719E8007 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QV90x-0000mN-FI; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:13:11 -0400
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:13:10 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58B194EA134F64A163C24F35@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikHMfB8DWzKV=xhwi_JXkZjQ6E0XA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=WCOORCipkW40gYHzaKUD7cR0CGg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTik-PNUatvfDQGSqtJD0CHLwznCa1A@mail.gmail.com> <5D92A844AC739C22A4525EAA@PST.JCK.COM> <BANLkTikHMfB8DWzKV=xhwi_JXkZjQ6E0XA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Non-English reading lists (was: Re: Request to publish draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:13:14 -0000

--On Friday, June 10, 2011 21:15 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10 June 2011 16:05, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> A big problem, especially for a BCP or standards-track
>> document, is the question of evaluation of the references.
> 
> Yes, and actually I could not evaluate anything in your
> reading list, because I won't buy books just because
> they are mentioned in an I-D I care about, and I'm no
> member of any library at the moment.  In essence the
> same problem why I don't like ISO standards unless I
> find a free online version at ECMA or elsewhere.

Understood.

>> If you want to gather up some people who could do
>> (and that includes cross-checking and evaluating)
>> a reading list in one or more languages (I'd
>> recommend doing it in annotated bibliography form)
> [...]
> 
> Well, no, we discussed the one and only German book
> I could contribute to this BCP offlist, and agreed
> that adding it does not really help with the issue.
> 
> But your I-D still asks for a general solution, and
> my proposal would be "RFC fan pages", e.g., a Wiki
> based on MediaWiki (but not another Wiki software)
> with a page for each RFC, and a "talk" page for the
> community.  Or something in this direction cooked
> up by the IETF tools folks.  Whatever the solution
> is, it should somehow integrate the errata process,
> and offer pointers to related RFC xxxx-bis mailing
> lists.

Well, I didn't see myself asking for a general solution.  While
it is just my personal opinion, I think a German-only reading
list should be perfectly publishable.  If it then was
supplemented by, e.g., Dutch-only, Swedish-only, Norwegian-only,
Japanese-only, Chinese-only, or Ukrainian-only one, that would
be great too, except that I think we'd have a lot less
difficulty finding independent reviewers for the first seven
than for Ukrainian.

While I think any of those --either single-language or
multilingual-- would be useful, I carefully made my proposal in
a way that would, IMO, fall well within RFC Editor precedents
and RSE discretion based on those precedents.  I deliberately
did not address your broader dreams/fantasies precisely because
they would require fundamental changes to how we do things that
aren't going to happen any time soon (regardless of whether I
think they are good ideas or not).
 
>...
   john