IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 31 May 2018 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 D42F312E8C1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:22:35 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 kTg4HIkcSDF9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a129.g.dreamhost.com (homie-sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85CE112EAB8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a129.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a129.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25AB10002181; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=G+DpeF4+eNxpghK7RgDavshOCic=; b=iO28J81OcyL UKQ+CZPk7gPHzTS2BHBRcuyaOwaIk6IXTlxzMeBNGCs+1+dRL5w+UCdw/e0YsLdh d5P5oci0gOS8T152YUxS4tYK7dPwyqejRfe9re4JddzDXJMDH8Whbm7hhrffDBdm a4ohKmSHYhaogMU9lw63CK3xv1ST6kmw=
Received: from localhost (cpe-70-123-158-140.austin.res.rr.com [70.123.158.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a129.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67F0810002180; Thu, 31 May 2018 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 12:22:29 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n (was: Re: Possible OBF question -- I18n)
Message-ID: <20180531172228.GF14446@localhost>
References: <20180530231127.17198276FEE3@ary.qy> <071E6235FE7B088A2B56A238@PSB> <0093E2CD-670E-47B6-A286-4FDEB140FAD9@frobbit.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0093E2CD-670E-47B6-A286-4FDEB140FAD9@frobbit.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/b6myhF9xo2wYphUqlpizCAHrxAU>
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 17:22:36 -0000

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:27:20AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 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.

Does anyone else?!

Certainly, in the context of Internet protocols, the IETF is the place
to do I18N work.  Can there be any doubt?

I mean, no SDO has more competence than the Unicode Consortium when it
comes to dealing with core Unicode issues alone.

But there are protocol issues in the I18N and L10N spaces where the IETF
has the most competence, IMO.

In any case, if the proposal is to do I18N work on protocols that are
not Internet protocols, then I would say: no.  Bring those protocols
into the IETF or leave them out -- that's the only choice there, but if
we bring them in then we must also do any necessary I18N work on them.

Lack of expertise is not a problem: we can develop it, and we can seek
out external review.

Besides, the IETF has lots of I18N expertise on hand.  Perhaps the IETF
has no energy to do I18N work, but that's another story.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email