Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n (was: Re: Possible OBF question -- I18n)

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 07:46:36AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2018, at 6:19, Nico Williams wrote:
> > PS: Really, I'm shocked at this thread.  I don't get it.  What series
> >     of events is causing the sad, utter despair on display here?
> >     I've not been following the IETF all that much, so it's possible
> >     I missed some disasters.  Can they have been so bad?  Please
> >     fill me in on them.
> 
> That we have for example:
> 
> - Had Unicode/IDNA discussions with comments from very very few
>   people, and I think three that "did send text"
> - Had IAB close a directorate on the topic
> - Had Precis "just about" get the review they needed to call consensus
> 
> This is what I have seen.
> 
> So, very very very few people actually "show up" in discussions.

Doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.  Maybe there is no sense
of urgency to IDNA improvements.

Require that documents have I18N Considerations sections, require review
by an I18N directorate, and you'll see how quickly participants who used
to not give a damn about I18 will come around, learn what they have to,
and get their I18N work done.  Suddenly the I18N directorate will be in
demand.

What's certainly not workable is to let other SDOs (which ones?  besides
the UC, which almost certainly doesn't have the Internet protocol
know-how/experience, which SDOs have more I18N clue and experience than
the IETF?!) do the I18N work on Internet protocols.  If they do so while
participating in the IETF process then that's just working within the
IETF.  If they do so without following IETF process then we might as
well close down the IETF.

These are [perhaps the only] choices we have:

 - do nothing about I18N for a while -- maybe we just don't and won't
   have the energy until the pain becomes palpable, and maybe waiting
   until then is OK

   (this is a distinct possibility -- maybe we've gotten good enough)

 - require Standards-Track (and Informational too, why not) RFCs have
   I18N Considerations sections, and require review by an I18N
   directorate -- or something along these lines

 - close down the IETF

I don't think anyone seriously thinks we should close down the IETF.
But I keep seeing that contradiction in terms of letting other SDOs do
our I18N work.  So who knows, maybe some of you think we should close
down the IETF!  If any of you do, please explain.

Participants already pay a Security Considerations and secdir review
cost of doing business "tax".  I18N is the same.  For many participants
I18N is actually critical, though most people/vendors who have critical
I18N business requirements are in the W3C / application space -- those
will gladly pay an I18N cost of doing business.

Nico
--