IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 07 June 2018 05:03 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 EFE6B130E64 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 22:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
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 vZ9b-POT4F-7 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 22:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.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 165C6130E3C for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 22:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
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 1fQn4Z-000Cwy-Aq; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 01:02:55 -0400
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 01:02:47 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>, i18nrp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <29DDF1291341A2528E323442@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <da5fe31b-828e-2649-3efc-10892ecb89dc@nostrum.com>
References: <4DA478C4C99396556E1B3EF1@PSB> <a31e91ff-c78c-6a7c-fe8c-70b9563312f7@nostrum.com> <8774afa2-4d3f-bc08-69af-f88e229f547a@mozilla.com> <07356789-b93f-b1a2-21d6-bef704b7c0b0@nostrum.com> <a6b7bf5c-3f37-e97b-7e44-c9e648bdbcef@mozilla.com> <ba6339f3-eb5f-4d14-51fb-256d6682f37e@nostrum.com> <c6d2a8d7-301b-c017-34ac-44da954c0b46@mozilla.com> <20180607031752.GS14446@localhost> <20180607033006.GT14446@localhost> <cff5d71d-d47f-d8b2-4c93-41b2c0c603c5@nostrum.com> <20180607034752.GV14446@localhost> <AE5C30EA35DC94399D43468E@PSB> <da5fe31b-828e-2649-3efc-10892ecb89dc@nostrum.com>
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/jejFB5L4yWTCp18l0kdKYQELqls>
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 05:03:03 -0000


--On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 23:41 -0500 Adam Roach
<adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> It seems that these are two very different problems indeed,
> and probably in need of two different solutions. Again, I ask
> you -- as one of the BOF proponents -- to put a concrete
> suggestion on the table to serve as a basis for conversation.

Adam,

I'll work on that although, if I had suggestions that were
clearly better than the ones we discussed in Chicago I would
have proposed  them long ago.  In the interim, the discussion of
directorates for review of documents that are only partially or
incidentally about i18n issues, or that need review to determine
whether or not they are, should probably continue.  I may not be
able to get back to it before the weekend, however.

To clarify my earlier comment about Brian's original note in the
light of these conversations, my concerns were about this
separation of problems (i.e., problems that traditional
directorate models probably don't solve) and, for the directory
model, precisely the issues about expertise and number of live
bodies needed that have been under discussion in this thread.

  best,
     john

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email