IESG,
I find the unexpected approval of this document more than a little bit troubling as it appears to me to be a blatant end-run around IETF processes, one that will come back to haunt us. The document is not written as an informational, personal opinion, piece. It is written as a statement about what IETF does, and what terminology IETF uses. It also goes well beyond its title to talk about what internationalization is all about, and again states those things as if the position represent IETF consensus. And then it tries to circumvent that by claiming that is in non-normative. Consider, for example, the beginning of the third paragraph of section 1.1,
This document gives an overview of internationalization
as it applies to IETF standards work by lightly covering
the many aspects of internationalization and the
vocabulary associated with those topics. It is not
meant to be a complete description of
internationalization. The definitions in this document
are not normative for IETF standards; however, they are
useful and standards may make non-normative reference to
this document after it becomes an RFC.
While it is not intended to be a "complete description", it does claim to cover the "many aspects", which implies that it covers all i18n topics the IETF considers relevant. As a statement about what Paul considers relevant, that is great. As a statement about what the IETF considers relevant, there should be clear evidence of consensus.
The last of these sentences defies my understanding of the meaning of "normative". If I am writing one document, and I refer to another one for definitions that are required to properly understand the first, there is no way for that reference not to be normative. If it were intended to say "use of these definitions is not obligatory for IETF standards addressing internationalization", that would be different. But, for those documents that reference this one, definitions are still normative unless it makes no difference whether those, or other, definitions are applied.
If this document is really to be "terminology used in the IETF" (in either title or content), then I believe IESG is obligated to issue a Last Call to be sure that all relevant community input has been obtained and considered. I note that the comments above were made, in substance at least, to Paul during more than one earlier draft and that they have been ignored (specifically, the text has not changed, and there has been no response explaining why). That is within his rights for an individual submission that reflects individual option; it is not reasonable for a document that claims to speak for the IETF.
The fact that this document appears to adopt the view of internationalization that is popular in a particular external community, but that neither that view nor the associated terminology are uniformly accepted, just further emphasizes the observation that this should either be published as Paul's opinion or that it should really reflect IETF consensus. Having the opinions of a subset of the community presented as if they are IETF norms, without any formal consensus process or review within the community, is an end run within what I believe to be the intent of RFC 2026, even if no specific WG is involved.
At least a disclaimer that clearly identifies this as personal opinions, and removal of the text that implies that this is accepted as a base for other documents and work, would seem to be in order.
john
--On Wednesday, 12 March, 2003 10:15 -0500 The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
The IESG has no objections to the Internet-Draft 'Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF' <draft-hoffman-i18n-terms-11.txt> being published as an Informational RFC. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Patrik Faltstrom and Ned Freed.