Re: RFC Editor Function SOW Review

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin wrote:
>> If an effort is worthy of adoption by the Internet, surely it
>> is reasonable to demand that it have enough support to be able
>> to obtain its own means of ensuring that the writing is
>> adequate.
>
> We may find that there is more market for some protocols --and,
> over time, for the Internet itself-- in areas where a very
> significant fraction of the user and Engineering populations are
> not good writers of English (even if they are able to read and
> speak it well enough to participate effectively in the work of
> the IETF).  

Should the IETF do "niche" standards, for small markets?  I think our history
has been that we have felt we generally should not and that our work is
primarily intended for "Internet scaling", not just "can operate using Internet
technical infrastructure".  Hence, an IETF effort needs to be able to
demonstrate a broad base of support.


> I think getting the writing quality of those
> documents up to a standard where they can be broadly understood
> is a community responsibility: if we take the position that
> authors who cannot write clearly in English, or WGs where such
> people dominate the technical work, are not welcome or able to
> play, then we hurt the IETF and the Internet but pushing those
> ideas and contributions somewhere else... perhaps even into
> islands.

I agree, so it is a good thing that I did not say anything to suggest otherwise.

What I HAVE said is that the process of getting and demonstrating sufficient
community support should include requiring acceptable writing of the
specifications. If an effort is not able to recruit sufficient resources for
that task, then I frankly question whether it has sufficient market "pull" to
succeed.

Given the aggregate costs of producing even the most modest Internet standard,
the incremental cost of ensuring writing quality is quite small.  However
concentrating all that expense for all RFCs into the RFC Editor is really just a
way of relieving proponents from doing the work needed to create competent work
and demonstrate support for it.


>> Having sufficient community support is an essential
>> requirement, if an effort it going to be successful.
>> Requiring that the effort demonstrate that support, in various
>> pragmatic ways, is merely reasonable.
> 
> Sure.  But that is consistent with expecting design quality but
> not necessarily the capability to easily write clear English.

I have tried to learn enough different languages -- and done badly with each --
to appreciate the barrier that writing in English represents for non-native
English writers.  That is why I am being careful not to claim that a particular
author must be skilled, but rather that the *community* seeking IETF
standardization has the responsibility.


>>  What is NOT reasonabel
>> is a model that has the IETF formal infrastructure --
>> management, editors, etc. -- do the grunt work of making
>> design and writing decisions.  We have amply demonstrated that
>> this latter model does not scale or is, at the least, too
>> expensive. (Well, I guess that's a form of not scaling?)
> 
> Actually, I am not sure that we have demonstrated that at all,
> amply or not.  But, if you say so...

Apologies.  I thought we had some problems with covering IETF-related expenses.
 So I thought it worth looking for expenses that could be eliminated from the
"overhead" category and moved back to the individual groups doing individual work.


>> This should all be part of moving the burden of work back to
>> authors and working groups... where it belongs.
> 
> Up to a point.  But the point that I think you are positing will
> tend to drive some work --work for which there is good community
> support and commitment-- out of the IETF.  And that is not in
> anyone's interest, IMO.

I would be interested in hearing your basis for this fear.  Organizations and
individuals that are proponents for a piece of work can spend massive numbers of
staff-hours, as well as travel and development expenses, but they cannot afford
to do the English-based technical editing on their own?  This somehow represents
an unsurmountable barrier? How is that, John?

d/
-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf