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

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 30 March 2021 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087753A045E for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:13:29 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V3JfB4LAX4PK for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29BE23A040F for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x126so12869637pfc.13 for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SEJnT322aUufVVspQMungBIlJg2KW83EQJLF/JXg7RE=; b=ivuZRyHAIEkSs7BuLuLbOXFf/EPu5ohhjIiFLlv6lE09/r+sXrnbfYHR+ymhuCLC6J J3P6u6Gesa/phw9JidY/lkQ+vqmvpeqpunZlTNt7sbsnWjhlUlCQccGANTk76W5yewJq KyP4Jg+6VZuWcl8LCUD4ujO2p7HaAMl+wkuXo8QPSDs7bLjIT9/nGxyVr+7tuz27kZ6o bo+NsA2uU5dJ7hWyUrAjDLTXPKbt0WGM0f7MhXCQczrohhNBGNFA0loJzjfRe7n4WvIN M3jv+Ua97jzr6c/nwUDoH8X8/Kw5UwCSZYheWxZYZhItr7OkqUzrsCr9SBLSbM/NYoJV V54w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SEJnT322aUufVVspQMungBIlJg2KW83EQJLF/JXg7RE=; b=fWrgLyOxqz3L69vNIjauNi7/YXaJI0mubWmQ6lrehNvv7nIIx5BpdZ5zYxS45THWpC SPYzU2c59inYZST7X95500x7vp5pVQRHosby6kCKlecnCe0ec+EV0a+Y/3d787xnZKGe Dv2I/qPRWwF2RoqyLIBe2AKCZBKZ5rMSR5QOaTwv2aihpozQh5lAs76AmiiSrZwEFg3A Smr51W0kqtb9gIQWtz8X5xa31X8LZwPwTJtNBnONtyMu6VyTrv6dAv+94Uh1FKoccrsd sc0pQkyWA6biP+JhmbxQrBIpHp9rxQMj4Fuc1xTgWEWgZX7MhLY2C+89CPeqCSyO+hpF 4+eQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326IvIerXLw0REq+oftViPGJft1YBMvRNKzfl2wjWxALRAYUymb 1pAlURzuc1Tz8vX0GDW3pVI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHujjpeEX3CrmEtRz88nSDRHLi71LlS4iOdzaiGKIES7+lNsXHUuU4hTJpJoAr924tuBGUjQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1e0a:: with SMTP id e10mr30619277pge.3.1617135187482; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id j30sm45444pgm.59.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lars Eggert <>, Eliot Lear <>
Cc: GENDISPATCH List <>, Eliot Lear <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:13:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 20:13:29 -0000

On 31-Mar-21 01:58, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 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.

Yes please. And I think it can be dispatched fairly rapidly as an AD-sponsored draft, for which I hope Lars can find an AD ;-).

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

Agreed, and that needs a much deeper analysis. And IMNSHO there are many much more important process issues to resolve than the occasional unruly threads on ietf@. Just to pick one at random, what can we do to prevent something like Cluster 238 ever happening again?