[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CORRECTION: Document Action: 'Terminology Used inInternationalization in the IETF' to Informational

FWIW, I think the document is far better than having nothing in this area.
For instance, there was language in the charsets considerations document that Ted Hardie's been working on that was just majorly confusing to someone used to other terminology - and I pointed him to this document rather than going into details.

John has a particular axe to grind (he wants the influence of the Unicode Consortium on the world's internationalization efforts reduced), and is grinding that axe pretty hard.

I didn't find the energy to step into the fight between John and Paul - they're sufficiently opposed to each other that even when they seem to everyone else to be saying the same thing, they both agree that they disagree.

My previous efforts to generate IETF activity in the area (INTLOC BOF in Salt Lake City) failed. And Paul is attempting to deliver something that the community needs.

Where should we go from here?

Harald

--On torsdag, mars 13, 2003 06:47:16 -0500 Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:

FYI: I don't read the text John does, and because of that I recommended
IESG to _NOT_ object having the document published by the RFC
Editor.

FWIW, I think the specific language John quotes from the document is
bogus. Specifically, the last sentence:


> 		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.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But how significant this is in the
overall scheme of things I'm less sure.

I also tend to agree that the title:

    Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF

seems to give it an IETF blessing.


When we talked about it briefly on the IESG chat, no one else had any
objection to the language either, BUT, I know I don't read all I-D's
and I often trust other AD's. Because of that, I don't blame or claim
any other AD read and think the document is ok.



Anyway, we have an objection here from John, and I need help from some
english-native speaking people.



Maybe we should discuss more, as the history is confusing on this
document. I.e, I recall Paul submitting it to the rfc editor back on
October. The rfc editor said "we don't like it" and gave (according to
Paul) vague objections that couldn't be responded to but sounded like
"and we'll never publish it". John then complained about the document
too (and a bunch of IESG members on intloc saw those comments). We
(??) at some point decided that we needed to force the issue with the
rfc editor so that they would provide more clear feedback and say yes
or no more clearly. We did discuss this document (the above issue)
before getting an official "2 week review" request from the rfc editor
many moons ago.

I don't see the specific "2 week review" for this document from the
rfc editor, but assume we got one, as I see a note from Joyce saying
"please consider the updated document now".

Now, to be clear, I don't remember *exactly* what the IESG agreed to
in the call last week, but I recall it had to do with not quite
approving the document but telling the RFC editor to go forward
anyway? The minutes aren't clear on this.

Is the IESG not intending to respond to a 2 week review request in its
response last week?

Thomas