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

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

On torsdag, mar 13, 2003, at 10:10 US/Pacific, ned.freed@mrochek.com 
wrote:

> > FWIW, I think the document is far better than having nothing in this 
> > area.
> I completely agree.
This was what I heard during the telechat, and what I recommended 
_together_ with a note that we would only tell the RFC-Editor we didn't 
object (so they if they feel they really have to, can say no).

> > 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.
> Indeed. And if past experience is any indication (e.g., the charset 
> terminology
> discussion) it will turn out to be that it is only his private 
> splitting maul
> that's on the grinder.
I would like to add that unfortunately Paul and John really don't go 
together. But, also that we need them both in the IETF for I18N 
discussions. Sigh, this is not easy.

> > Where should we go from here?
> I say reword the problematic paragraph per Allison and Randy's 
> suggestions
> and move on.
I find this being a good suggestion.

We (IESG as well as IETF) have other things to do than splitting hairs. 
There are so many documents which are _not_ produced which need help.

I'll try to summarize.

   paf