Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-00.txt

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>>>>>> I think this definition is not correct.  "A way that humans interact" is
>>>>>> too generalized.  I suppose the following definition would suit better here.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your definition is too limiting. Clearly, we are not only talking about
>>>>> speech.
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed; but the current isn't appropriate as well.  Considering a language
>>>> being the humans interaction way is correct in its concept, but I think we
>>>> should think about more exact definition.
>>>>
>>> I don't.  I think the text is fine as it is, and we should stop
>>> pushing on this point and leave it alone.  [The only change I can see
>>> supporting is inserting "verbal" before "way".  But there are
>>> non-verbal languages, as well.]
>>>
>> Adding "verbal" seems fine to me; this will clarify the definition a bit.
>
> As Barry said, there are non-verbal languages as well. As co-author of this
> document, I would be very hesitant to disqualify the languages used by tens
> (maybe hundreds) of millions of people with this change unless the WG has
> a good reason to do so.

This, plus Andrew's opposition, and the fact that there's been no
other call for changing the definition of "Language" here, leads me to
make the chair declaration that this is decided: the text remains as
it stands.

Barry, as chair