Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 03 June 2018 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110C4126BF3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 13:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 MtY-6PofoHxW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 13:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22f.google.com (mail-pg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (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 6A425126B6D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 13:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p8-v6so13516815pgq.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 13:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lPSaWc/21jZAJU+eUi1Y9Ux7Ok6wMioUk15g+xrLp1c=; b=JjvQT0jJjXXSLGfHwV/m48YtbbLKlk2CVi3ssE9vhTvyc0CFl7L2cVpYmRIfVN8OPB sdeGtRPvNMavsOtOzHvD5qOYBb6t+GD/c/jg68gxL+M+vO8WQ3i4aQkAFIlKH2fEV5lw ra49itCgHHdXkmOi4Orla3AVM+dKVmwcT+BASVF89DuTF4oGZ9TVpEebytRMNGA3/UFx pUTz4rvE518r9OmaZ+1pek714M+phNs+t1/QVLEBHYSyX82lc8S5HtiCtzC7UiB1T6EQ /7mZy39k7eHE4+UBN0tpIcTH0CijwDAUlvmg+shP7lVfbTJejjEles84BZpAGhTqhtTP YNyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lPSaWc/21jZAJU+eUi1Y9Ux7Ok6wMioUk15g+xrLp1c=; b=Aw5XWOz831RDtfkwL9iJS53NkmJuaJ56KsjQoAsryJUC53tLv3yNguFxmzm2zJb69V M5+V+jHS3/usDyUmnITd7s6UxvfEkQmet5QUFDna5QnaA+hrN6OIe3dD62+1RtE/TVUL W8yaAFCHBkfKIDHTwCu7eBEQfpyysZ758PgZ+EIjgvC6BiCBflXWfmm6jbOONYcFTtcz MFYCxX40FuJKDHj/JtoQ4i9Zw09+gPfChcFgcMyA8+eA0kydXLpVwn83/MHWG48H+fFa 1ovehHO2LM0Nle7bE9LCMcvrj7fjNB9D0+IUVy4mt50o2b0H0Lv15uiCjPt0NVEsACEi sMFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdyN1FRfoIWX27tmOTNbn+37jQ35vMnYeCDZWF2f6pT6Yel9Nv2 sMGzvGJOHTc2WjYa+O9FxYPbNA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKmC4ct7Q30zTRQtKO4V6UlaCjhqhSEUWlqoVpQUH7mZ74KwMd6eerHny2A4Az6WBI3jXyjlg==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:3745:: with SMTP id e66-v6mr18645202pfa.43.1528059400660; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 13:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.148.121.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a7-v6sm66952961pgc.68.2018.06.03.13.56.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Jun 2018 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <0093E2CD-670E-47B6-A286-4FDEB140FAD9@frobbit.se> <20180531172228.GF14446@localhost> <383c2404-7beb-63e9-b2b2-e75fd1b174f1@mozilla.com> <20180601041949.GH14446@localhost> <A13FFF23-49BD-459D-8B5B-D3448154EEBC@frobbit.se> <20180601151053.GI14446@localhost> <2584adb9-1622-8b49-7236-ecc7dd374974@mozilla.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1806011219340.7621@ary.qy> <CAK3OfOgv33SJiPJ6ypo8k5hcpnjcJdRso6EXb9b12YNcdDgMUg@mail.gmail.com> <6c5d5618-74a5-dcc8-d818-89243a41f307@gmail.com> <20180603061350.GM14446@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d125f213-c096-1e93-0a6e-ffdfc55a7ac6@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 08:56:36 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180603061350.GM14446@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/JUZbY9kR2sa3C24hiOFa47AWsLs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:56:43 -0000

On 03/06/2018 18:13, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 03:54:54PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I'm an ignoramus, but:
>> On 02/06/2018 05:59, Nico Williams wrote:
>> ...
>>> Not everyone can pick up I18N expertise  quickly?  Sure, but we engineer
>>> complex things, so i suspect many participants at the IETF can actually
>>> pick up enough I18N expertise to be useful. I18N is not a dark art.
>>
>> If a dark art is one that involves combinatorial degrees of complexity
>> mixed with human perception, judgment and emotion, then I fear that I18N
>> *is* a dark art. We can perhaps manage such complexity by limiting the
>> scope of what we try to do in our protocols, but I for one would very
>> much appreciate having an I18N directorate reviewing everything.
> 
> I disagree.  It's not a black art.  There are some corners where
> reasonable people can and will disagree (should emoji be allowed in
> domainnames?), and there will be some cases that require script-specific
> expertise, and therefore a lot of time to sort out.  But I18N is not a
> dark art at all.  If it were, then how would we get anything done in
> that space?  The E in IETF stands for Engineering, not Dark Art.

We're in a space where the evaluation of A==B depends on more than
the bit strings A and B. Your post about form-insensitive filename
comparisons is a case in point, although I don't pretend to understand
it. OK, we can argue whether that's a dark art or simply complicated
engineering, but really what I need is (a) some generally applicable
guidelines on protocol design in this area and (b) some people willing to
review any relevant design work.

    Brian