Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 02 July 2011 08:34 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 00D4E21F88C8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 01:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 LOBAg-rWp7Q5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 01:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A900B21F88C7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 01:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QcveB-000GsV-Sy; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 04:33:52 -0400
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 04:33:50 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <9DF5D6721C7098CB2DE51B0B@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <4E0E82D0.6040003@qualcomm.com>
References: <20110701162416.GB24564@shinkuro.com> <148089D7A073E8A4A9F54B64@PST.JCK.COM> <4E0E82D0.6040003@qualcomm.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: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04
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: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:34:02 -0000
Pete, Having been somewhat involved as a member of the Editorial Board, one bit of clarification, which might be relevant to the IESG's considerations, followed by a review of the situation from my perspective. --On Friday, July 01, 2011 21:30 -0500 Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote: >... > As I have mentioned to Paul offline, there was some pretty > stiff pushback on this being BCP. Some of it was of the form, > "You haven't said it strongly enough" (like Dan's DISCUSS > comment, where he and others would *prefer* this document to > be a BCP), and I think with some changes, those folks are > right on board. There are other ADs (nominally Russ, though > there are others who support his position) who felt that in no > event was a glossary the appropriate sort of thing for BCP > status; it is replacing an existing Informational document, > and it isn't clear that glossaries are appropriate for BCPs. > RFC 2026 is not at all precise on this; the only category of > BCP this could really fall under is if this is meant to > "document the operation of the IETF itself", which means to me > that it is a "documentation procedure" (i.e., "we shall use > these definitions"). > The IETF has a perfectly mixed record on > whether glossaries are BCP Informational, so precedents are > unclear, the extremes being RFC 2119 (a BCP that defined > several terms for use in IETF documents as normative protocol > interoperability statements) and RFC 2828 (an Informational > document that has a nice list of security terms and their > definitions, but their use is strictly informational). The use of 2828 as an example takes "odd" to a new level. My recollection was that it was very contentious at the time and that it was published as Informational (rather than as a BCP or Standards Track), not because of some philosophical understanding of the difference among those categories but because it was clear that consensus on the definitions could not be achieved for Standards Track (or BCP) publication. Perhaps more important, 2828 is identified as "Obsoleted by RFC4949". Under normal circumstances, the IETF does not look to obsolescent documents for precedents. When Rob decided to expand and replace 2828 a few years later -- my recollection is that the revision and review process took a long time, probably several years -- the IESG concluded that it should be handled through what we now call the Independent Stream, precisely to avoid a review process in the IETF that would not only be contentious but that would have the characteristic that no one, including Rob, would support all of the definitions. Even as an Independent Submission, it was clear that 4949 was going to be contentious enough that it carries, in its "RFC Editor Note", what I believe is the strongest disclaimer used by the RFC Editor on an Independent Submission prior to RFC 5741. I also note that, while it was published as an Independent Submission, the IESG decided to classify it as FYI 36. Probably the FYI series actually was the right place to publish glossaries, but the IESG has, in its wisdom, eliminated that series. Some portion of the reason why 3536 was published as Informational was a little bit similar to the consensus problem that occurred with 2828 and then with 4949. Some of these definitions are, IMO, detestable (the circularity in the definition of "glyph" is a good example). Large fractions of the linguistic and typographic communities considered the use of "Latin" to include characters that neither the Romans of the late Republic nor medieval scribes had ever seen to be a contemptible exhibition of ignorance. Some members of the community (myself included) felt quite strongly that the usage of those terms had not stabilized enough that the IETF should attach strong and formal approval to them. Eight years later, the use of these terms has stabilized sufficiently --become routine and common practice in the community-- that Paul and I were able to collaborate fairly painlessly on the current draft. There are still terms I don't like, and presumably terms he doesn't like, but we have no trouble agreeing on the state of current practice. Questions about the competence of definitions that originated in other standards bodies and that are very widely used notwithstanding, these definitions do have relatively strong consensus (not just in theory but in use) within the community in the IETF that is actively working on internationalization issues. Oddly, that is precisely the reason why this revision is important at this time and that it is important that it be treated as a normative part of how the IETF does business and writes documents. Within the portion of the community who actively work in i18n, there is substantially no disagreement about terminology and the educated but often intuitive definitions of terms are harmonious if not identical. But the number of development efforts (WG and non-WG) that will find themselves dealing with i18n issues is on the rise and will continue to rise. Efforts to reinvent and rediscover this terminology, especially by people who are not familiar with the relevant literature (comments like "just tell me what to do, don't expect me to read that 5.5 cm thick Unicode thing" remain very prevalent) are a waste of time at best and, at worst, may lead to more confusion in the future. This is the time for the IETF to take a strong position on the terminology and its applicability, precisely to avoid ending up in the situations that motivated the Informational status of 2828 and the ability to handle 4949 only as an Independent Submission. > As I suggested, Paul has already written to the IESG some > explanation of why this document ought to be a BCP. I > encourage the document editors to continue that discussion. > Important to the discussion is why you think it is necessary > and justified that this document to be a BCP instead of an > Informational RFC. Obviously, feel free to circulate all or parts of this note if you think that would be useful. best, john
- [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc35… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-r… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-r… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-r… Pete Resnick
- Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-r… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-r… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-r… Andrew Sullivan