IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Thu, 31 May 2018 19:31 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 78C51131630 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 12:31:52 -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 QPoTYeMhrIzH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 12:31:50 -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 4EAB413162F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2018 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (d83-183-96-96.cust.tele2.se [83.183.96.96]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0B822136B; Thu, 31 May 2018 21:31:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
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)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:31:45 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6113)
Message-ID: <09C80180-B772-492A-A1A6-B04C4ECDE8C9@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20180531172228.GF14446@localhost>
References: <20180530231127.17198276FEE3@ary.qy> <071E6235FE7B088A2B56A238@PSB> <0093E2CD-670E-47B6-A286-4FDEB140FAD9@frobbit.se> <20180531172228.GF14446@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_66D7CB40-EE73-43A2-B900-6777C45565D6_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xV1kl_B6L9OqQ__C5apzBEflwwM>
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 19:31:53 -0000

On 31 May 2018, at 19:22, Nico Williams wrote:

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

From my personal view, a crystal clear "NO" (part from coordination with W3C of course).

But that is something I think IETF should ask itself and decide that is the case, and act accordingly. Whatever that means. If I knew, I would say...

   paf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email