Re: [rfc-i] On the difficulty of technical Mandarin (SM3 related)
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 10:32 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966C7120059 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=1STXZp9a; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=sERgY/pU
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 96TtkaZyXUiV for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35E6F12001B for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D6AB80C83; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04942B80C82 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=1STXZp9a; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=sERgY/pU
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaOvCAf-ltPQ for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2355FB80C81 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.148.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x84AVeQY001733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1567593112; x=1567679512; bh=I7iZ9P0rElD/g7E36QabfsIsZ+/bw3LBo6Lsn/HxBgo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=1STXZp9a/JPnY9FCPH6sRX4QKy7oWuheHUkmu09cbxYEQUQgg/aHBtW1DHNYpAtTU u5kjdVDZj9H+8Ah2P6mrZk5IpNwXQTIdYfPDALH+IadhNy3FVmSFdMrEC6KHpabwI8 YA2IeWNZm5myD8f3wmnJfePpvkS0BSJrBOBa2ZF4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1567593112; x=1567679512; i=@elandsys.com; bh=I7iZ9P0rElD/g7E36QabfsIsZ+/bw3LBo6Lsn/HxBgo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=sERgY/pUwBo872mmb1bZjQO6oP+lxXSFTwsCHRoziDASMiPKcGnTFIoF4YswPW48S 1zQJNC/zLaURPn8q4iiF+Yn4fsSMJ+HsIFAiqE/KKrLwpJ+NlM5iK7PrNviPl7asYR m1QeYBfn0txqVFquB30slh8dcB+Jz4h3lCo9/ZB8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190904032917.11b65610@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 03:31:08 -0700
To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] On the difficulty of technical Mandarin (SM3 related)
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
Hi Kyle, At 09:26 AM 19-08-2019, Kyle Rose wrote: >For purely practical reasons, within a knowledge domain it makes >sense to have a single language in which normative documents are >written, with fluency in that language an implicit requirement of >direct participation. Otherwise, the number of people who will be >able to contribute to IETF work (writing or reviewing) will be very >small, limiting the throughput, shared knowledge base, and overall >utility of the SDO. There isn't any rule which states that normative references must be to documents which are written in English. Regards, S. Moonesamy _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest