Subject: [apps-discuss] Request to publish draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 19:00:16 -0400

Area Directors:
The Applications Area Working Group requests the publication of
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02 as a BCP, obsoleting RFC 3536, which
is Informational.  Attached is the PROTO writeup.

Barry, appsawg chair, and document shepherd

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:32:42 +0200

On 10 June 2011 01:00, Barry Leiba wrote:

> Attached is the PROTO writeup.

+1.  I'm still not convinced that a BCP with an international
audience should contain a reading list for a mainly English
audience, but hopefully we'll arrive at better solutions in
future RFCs.

I'd love to have "official RFC fan pages", where I could add
comments, share, "like", "+1", "pingback", "trackback", etc.
certain RFCs.

-Frank

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:05:49 -0400

> audience, but hopefully we'll arrive at better solutions in

Frank,

A big problem, especially for a BCP or standards-track document,
is the question of evaluation of the references.  Using myself
as a handy example, I can read a few languages other than
English, but I absolutely do not know the internationalization
literature in those languages to be able to know what to
recommend (or even to evaluate a recommendation).  I know that
there are some materials in English that we did not list, not
because they were overlooked, but because they are pretty bad
(at least in my opinion or Paul's, but the WG Last Call didn't
turn up complaints about their omission).

But let me make a suggestion.   If you want to gather up some
people who could do (and that includes cross-checking and
evaluating) a reading list in one or more languages (I'd
recommend doing it in annotated bibliography form) or even a
multilingual thesaurus of i18n terminology, I'd assume that the
Independent Submission Editor would be included to publish such
a thing as relevant and useful to the community.  I can't speak
for the ISE, of course, but you could check first if you wanted
to go ahead with such an effort.  There would be some issues
about publication in other than English and publication in
page-layout (PS and/or PDF) form to capture the relevant
characters and not have to resort entirely to transliteration.
However, we've had PS-only RFCs in the past and the rules permit
them as special exceptions when justified.  And, while I haven't
asked him, I note that the Acting RSE is not a native speaker of
English and might be sympathetic to the goal.

     john

---

From: "Resnick, Pete" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:41:07 +0000

Thanks for a nice writeup. I'll get this last called ASAP.

pr

Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:

Area Directors:

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:15:57 +0200

On 10 June 2011 16:05, John C Klensin wrote:

> is the question of evaluation of the references.

Yes, and actually I could not evaluate anything in your
reading list, because I won't buy books just because
they are mentioned in an I-D I care about, and I'm no
member of any library at the moment.  In essence the
same problem why I don't like ISO standards unless I
find a free online version at ECMA or elsewhere.

> If you want to gather up some people who could do
> (and that includes cross-checking and evaluating)
> a reading list in one or more languages (I'd
> recommend doing it in annotated bibliography form)
[...]

Well, no, we discussed the one and only German book
I could contribute to this BCP offlist, and agreed
that adding it does not really help with the issue.

But your I-D still asks for a general solution, and
my proposal would be "RFC fan pages", e.g., a Wiki
based on MediaWiki (but not another Wiki software)
with a page for each RFC, and a "talk" page for the
community.  Or something in this direction cooked
up by the IETF tools folks.  Whatever the solution
is, it should somehow integrate the errata process,
and offer pointers to related RFC xxxx-bis mailing
lists.

<dreaming> In an ideal world I could grab the last
SMTP and message format XML versions, fix the known
errata, and send them to the authors for publication
as STD.  Unless the IETF already committed two step
suicide... ;-) </dreaming>

Cheers

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:13:10 -0400

--On Friday, June 10, 2011 21:15 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> A big problem, especially for a BCP or standards-track
>> document, is the question of evaluation of the references.
> 

Understood.

> and offer pointers to related RFC xxxx-bis mailing

Well, I didn't see myself asking for a general solution.  While
it is just my personal opinion, I think a German-only reading
list should be perfectly publishable.  If it then was
supplemented by, e.g., Dutch-only, Swedish-only, Norwegian-only,
Japanese-only, Chinese-only, or Ukrainian-only one, that would
be great too, except that I think we'd have a lot less
difficulty finding independent reviewers for the first seven
than for Ukrainian.

While I think any of those --either single-language or
multilingual-- would be useful, I carefully made my proposal in
a way that would, IMO, fall well within RFC Editor precedents
and RSE discretion based on those precedents.  I deliberately
did not address your broader dreams/fantasies precisely because
they would require fundamental changes to how we do things that
aren't going to happen any time soon (regardless of whether I
think they are good ideas or not).
 
>...
   john