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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, June 10, 2011 21:15 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<[e-mail]> 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