IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 06 June 2018 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 4A1951277D2 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 gL41sRymDmVh for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982E312777C for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w56IN7sB006337 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:23:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, i18nrp@ietf.org
References: <f997170c-3062-0241-e58d-7a3415fba983@nostrum.com> <CE6F76BB323F1555D6B217A5@PSB>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <9ecf8b7a-d086-1c56-03fb-6773aed332c6@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:23:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CE6F76BB323F1555D6B217A5@PSB>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B9BB8031AC7C1695A05602D7"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/AyEGm_l_CFPf98tEFyBJkrttvGA>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF
X-BeenThere: i18nrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:23:13 -0000

On 6/6/18 8:58 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> I had hoped to see an open discussion in the weeks between now
> and the start of the IETF meeting but, while I have some ideas,
> the absence of specific proposals in the BOF proposal was
> deliberate.


I'd like to add two points of clarification, to make sure we're not 
talking past each other.

 1. This is not a request to revise the BOF request itself. We are
    looking for concrete process proposals within the next week on this
    mailing list.

 2. The proposals that are developed within the next week do not
    necessarily need to be those that are presented in Montreal. We are
    looking for a guarantee that there will be at least one concrete
    proposal going into the BOF. If a more preferred idea is proposed
    between next Wednesday and the meeting, it could be used as the
    basis for conversation instead of the initial proposals.

Thanks.

/a

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email