IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Thu, 31 May 2018 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 82D43127735 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2018 23:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 NOYDj9pKgTP9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2018 23:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72BA5126CD8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2018 23:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.165.72.239] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:64ab:a38:b9ee:2b73]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C360F22E8B; Thu, 31 May 2018 08:27:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n (was: Re: Possible OBF question -- I18n)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 08:27:20 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6111)
Message-ID: <0093E2CD-670E-47B6-A286-4FDEB140FAD9@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <071E6235FE7B088A2B56A238@PSB>
References: <20180530231127.17198276FEE3@ary.qy> <071E6235FE7B088A2B56A238@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_1D39448E-7198-4658-9A2C-EFA68FF2D7C1_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ly34I3I5fLY-HxkomPL5D19YztY>
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: Thu, 31 May 2018 06:27:28 -0000

On 31 May 2018, at 4:56, John C Klensin wrote:

> So my alternate hypothesis and reason for floating the BOF idea starts by assuming that, whether people can find some small
> amount of support or are dumb and/or committed enough to do the work anyway, the needed documents can and will be written and hence that the problem is getting adequate review to convince the IESG and the IETF community that those documents have been sufficiently checked and vetted to make publication --including as standards track when appropriate -- plausible and a
> reasonable expectation.

The serious question here is if IETF do have enough competence in I18N space or if IETF should drop that ball and give to some other SDO.

   Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email