Re: [I18ndir] I-D on filesystem I18N

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 06:06 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D59D3A0863 for <i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1sfQ8YjV0S2 for <i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from azure.dogwood.relay.mailchannels.net (azure.dogwood.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.211.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E55753A0859 for <i18ndir@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D844010B4; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 06:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-9-37.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.9.37]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 567AF400789; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 06:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Wed, 08 Jul 2020 06:06:52 +0000
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Little-Occur: 0922af765dbbc8a4_1594188412595_3507337350
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1594188412595:103839206
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1594188412595
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FA6B47D5; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=r3ytoeRGzJYlqq Wo8MQJOgiPhsM=; b=iSvPWjZffWB+npHHh43ih+ANhglMMqa1lwqIIDgjKNwL/g 0EIwCfzyzASMi0wHxK5WiHob1rQqE6oKt56/enkqjpbw0ygLDwT5rjaFwYAuGQy6 az/lmKG+tPvQXja4F1D3nFQQ+FfYpt3TSrOvSZByrhZ0ds78Qs4giRgN6odow=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D06CB47D9; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 01:06:46 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a38
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se>, i18ndir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200708060645.GI3100@localhost>
References: <20200706225139.GJ3100@localhost> <B8BC0F0A-94AB-4BEF-8A5F-449049E28D8F@frobbit.se> <20200707070456.GK3100@localhost> <B0FAFBAF9EA570CCFB2575CF@PSB> <20200707150542.GN3100@localhost> <A1F4A9338301D46132D62E72@PSB> <20200707214537.GU3100@localhost> <C2353A20A4699491C475BA2A@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C2353A20A4699491C475BA2A@PSB>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudeigddutdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefftdektefhueetveeigfefgeejteejvdfhhefgvddtfeeujeehleeguefhgffhgfenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/DDcYQPzmsEf0KP3bE0Dv2o9dFzo>
Subject: Re: [I18ndir] I-D on filesystem I18N
X-BeenThere: i18ndir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Directorate <i18ndir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18ndir/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18ndir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 06:06:55 -0000

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 01:36:35AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> I also think that a certain amount of respect is due to
> established protocols that have gotten IETF consensus and broad
> deployment.  That does not mean they can't be changed.  It does
> not mean they are not wrong-headed either.  But it seems to me
> that "I have an idea that I think is better" is not sufficient

That is denigrating and completely unnecessary.  I'm not saying "I have
an idea that I think is better".  I'm saying that the RUNNING CODE
differs from the damned spec.

Now, you can you not give a damn and let the spec and running code
continue to differ.  Fine.  But why even bother updating the spec at all
then?  Who cares what it says if no one bothers to implement it as
written?

We're about rough consensus, yes, but also running code damn it.

You can write fiction if you like, but I'm for writing specs that
reflect reality and have a chance in hell of improving reality.

Nico
--