IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I18nrp] Conservatism principle doesn't go far enough

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 01 February 2019 05:08 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64261131004 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 21:08:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 prpylYekGbac for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 21:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DA0A130DF1 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 21:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1gpR4O-000JAK-OG; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:08:52 -0500
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:08:45 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
cc: i18nrp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <BA2A5FC97506B187ABF4242C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901312152440.11394@ary.qy>
References: <20190201021802.A5160200D93BBA@ary.qy> <4C0F3C8D65FB57C697E72F8D@PSB> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901312152440.11394@ary.qy>
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
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/8tEbSDxS0WYyosH03tOoKP63dww>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Conservatism principle doesn't go far enough
X-BeenThere: i18nrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Review Procedures <i18nrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18nrp/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18nrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 05:08:56 -0000


--On Thursday, January 31, 2019 21:54 -0500 John R Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>> numbers in a different context.  But Larry's assertion, at
>> least as I understood it, was a little different and asserted
>> that one would not want to register a domain name that
>> wouldn't be displayed properly by a major browser).  For that
>> assertion, the "non-contracted parties" count.
> 
> Oh, no disagreement there.  I hardly need to tell you that the
> relationship between some ccTLDs and ICANN (and in some cases,
> everyone else) can be fraught.

I spent a bit of time with alternate parsings of that sentence,
because it would be nearly as accurate (or perhaps not even
"nearly") to say that ICANN's relationship with [almost]
everyone else can be fraught.  

In the unlikely event it wasn't clear, my other intended message
to Larry was that trying to put IETF into the middle of those
situations would not be a good idea... and not only because it
would be unlikely to be productive.

best,
    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email