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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:48:31PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> AFAIK we've never had an i18n directorate. Some ADs (Alexey is great at
> this) flag documents in IETF LC or IESG review that could use i18n help.
> Sometimes the authors reach out and ask for early review / assistance,
> either on their own or prodded by a WG chair or AD (this happens for
> many things outside of i18n, of course). Formalizing this has potential
> to improve outcomes without necessarily requiring an
> Internationalization Considerations section in every RFC (although IMHO
> we could include that during the I-D phase and remove it if there's
> nothing actionable, as we do for IANA considerations). However, as you
> note, there are plenty of protocols that don't include human-readable
> text so the i18n considerations would be a no-op.

Sure, +1 to that.

But it'd be best if authors (and WGs) had to think about I18N before
IESG review.

One good place to push I18N is at WG (re)charter time.  That's because
it might then be obvious whether or not any of the WGs work items will
have I18N issues.  For example, TCP/IP has no I18N issues.  But SSHv2
does, as do NFSv4, HTTP, and many others.  Generally the protocols
needing I18N help are application protocols.

Nico
--