Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt

Lars Eggert <> Tue, 30 March 2021 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D93D3A1115 for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o8Vtvs0yYDaS for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF04A3A112D for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A2F1600076; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:58:03 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1617109084; bh=K6bSFrp+HU/5IB/tHWB2Y1cjHVATbrnJF615g6oU1QE=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=Vw4irG/QbauCeE0vGPN6MK5OtxhB9QXg85zbPJDlwHPDGSUZoEzN9umDwspYzliR/ YmaaYu6HScKVsIEUmbVuJECCYnvB2bDMQ+A5F9iHpSomJ9zIbAAFtuqkzO4qzdE0v0 4lb4rU3wrPXr1z4knq/QR7stBj8VJgcnCGuTacA4=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D55DB7BB-076D-4035-8ED2-3CC1A4ADDFFE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:58:03 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Eliot Lear <>, GENDISPATCH List <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-MailScanner-ID: 0A2F1600076.A16A3
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:58:22 -0000


On 2021-3-30, at 15:07, Eliot Lear <> wrote:
> That’s my point.  Before we do a BCP45 update, perhaps we should ask if we should go farther, and take on Mark’s draft as well in this context, and then consider what should be done.  I like the idea of facilitated conversation.  I think it could be fun (a term not usually associated with the IETF list) but that’s me.  I’m sure others have their own ideas.

I'd prefer to do a minimal update to BCP45 soon, to bring its charter back in line with its current use.

We can always revise it again, when there is consensus on more fundamental changes.