[ChineseGP] [Japanesegp] Fw: Possible OBF question -- I18n

[Yoshiro YONEYA]

FYI

New mailing list for this topic had created.
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp>

Yoshiro YONEYA

On Thu, 31 May 2018 14:29:37 +0900 Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya at jprs.co.jp> wrote:

> FYI
> 
> Threads can be obtained from IETF mail archive.
> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg108021.html>
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 15:55:24 -0400
> From: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>
> To: ietf at ietf.org
> Subject: Possible OBF question -- I18n
> 
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I want to share a question and possible an idea and see if it
> gets any traction before Thursday's BOF application cutoff.
> 
> Many people seem to think that what has come to be called
> "internationalization" ("i18n") of the Internet is important,
> both to serving existing users for whom English may not be a
> comfortable language or Lain script a comfortable writing system
> and to making the Internet accessible to much larger populations
> ("the next billion").   Some of the issues are related to
> identifiers, with examples including IDNA, IRIs, PRECIS, and the
> recent work on non-ASCII identifiers in certificates.  Others
> are more connected to actual protocol design, such as the
> SMTPUTF8 work in the EAI WG.   Still others are related to
> content, language selection ins various applications, and so on.
> 
> 
> I think there is general recognition that the problems are
> difficult.  Human languages have evolved, and evolved
> differently, over more centuries than anyone can count, making
> extrapolations from one language or writing system to another
> difficult and error-prone.  Conventions that evolved to permit
> use of typewriters (with mechanically-limited numbers of keys)
> with writing systems with more than that many characters haunt
> contemporary comparison and matching issues.  Even changes as
> recent as the divergence of American from British English,
> French as spoken and written in France from French as used in
> Quebec, and efforts to simplify the representations of a few
> thousand commonly-used Chinese characters can pose serious
> problems for computer system designers and implementers who just
> want do do something quick, obvious, and straightforward but
> still correct (or at least acceptable enough to not be
> culturally insulting).
> 
> At the same time, the IETF has a problem with expertise, real
> energy, and support for internationalization work.  The last WGs
> directly focused on the issues have essentially run out of
> steam, with a very small number of participants able and willing
> to do late-stage analysis and reviews.  Other WGs whose work has
> involved important I18n issues have recognized that they don't
> have the needed expertise and had some trouble recruiting it or,
> when we are less lucky, have not recognized the problem.  The
> latter poses a special challenge because, if the work is
> specialized, there may be little or no review of the I18n impact
> during IETF Last Call unless someone happens to notice, a
> sitaution that might pose a real threat to interoperability when
> the protocols are actually used.
> 
> In addition, pressing problems do show up about which decisions
> need to be made if the IETF is going to fulfill its
> responsibilities in this area and, because of concerns about
> reviews (and probably more), it seems impossible to process work
> that is necessarily standards track without a WG and impossible
> to create a WG given the absence of manifestations of broad
> interest and knowledge and the history, mentioned above, of WGs
> running out of steam.
> 
> It also probably doesn't help that several of the acknowledged
> experts and critically interested parties have little or no
> reliable support for attending IETF meetings so, if a group is
> to be judged by counting the number of people in the room for a
> discussion, it is easy to conclude that there is less interest
> than might actually exist.
> 
> Some of us have been waiting for the IESG and/or IAB to sort the
> situation out and tell us what to do.  That hasn't happened,
> possibly because flying pigs are in short supply but more likely
> because they understand the problems and don't have any
> solutions either.  The IAB's concluding almost a year ago that
> its I18n Program was unsustainable and closing it was probably a
> benchmark, especially when one notices that no substitute has
> emerged, but, even had that not happened, an IAB Program can't
> process standards track documents under our current rules (or
> any rules I see anyone rushing to propose).
> 
> So I'm wondering whether there is sufficient interest to hold a
> BOF to discuss how to deal with this situation.   I don't want
> to get into the many substantive issues that have been hanging
> around, but rather to address the question of how, if there were
> drafts, what the review and approval process should be in an
> IETF where there will probably never be a huge number of experts
> around with time on their hands.  Could we devise something
> Directorate-like or even Area-like?  Could that group be counted
> on for substantive/ technical reviews to the extent to which,
> even if no other reviews addressed the substantive subject
> matter and no one on the IESG had special expertise, they could
> be approved anyway?  Should we be reaching out to other groups
> with general internationalization expertise (not just, or a
> focus on, character coding) to see if we would work out joint
> review efforts or even if we could comfortably export the topic?
> Or have we actually come to the conclusion that the IETF had
> best stop claiming any responsibility or authority in this area
> and that we are willing to let whatever emerges fill the vacuum?
> 
> If this sounds useful and you have anything to contribute,
> especially procedural or "where do we find the experts" advice,
> please speak up within the next 24-48 hours.  IMO, if we should
> give give up, I think it would be better to do that as the
> result of a formal discussion than as a decision of a handful of
> people meeting more or less in private and without an explicit
> opportunity for community input.  
> 
>     john
> 
> p.s. before someone asks, I'm thinking actual BOF because don't
> think there is any point in this unless it has someone from the
> IESG willing to take at least some responsibility, produces
> minutes, has meetecho coverage, etc.   I don't think dancing
> around with Bar BOFs, non-bar Bar BOFs, informal meetings, etc.,
> meet those criteria.  I don't thing a presentation in an area
> meeting or two would do it either -- we've tried that with no
> success and, more important, I'm seeing an increasing number of
> WGs being created with i18n implications or necessary
> involvement that are not in the ART area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> japanesegp mailing list
> japanesegp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/japanesegp
> 
>