Pete,
As another acknowledged contributor, I would presumably also be
exempt even if it were not for your policy of excluding me from
Directorate reviews.
That said, an addition to Martin's comments on the i18n-specific
issues [1]:
Just as we have seen i18n-related progress within the series,
with RFC 7997 and elsewhere, as he points out, there have been
some notable surprises and glitches (one could use stronger
words) arising at least partially from lack of in-depth i18n
(and non-Roman script and rendering) knowledge within the RFC
Editor Function. Under the system of the last few decades (for
which I feel less nostalgia than some messages I've received
seem to assume) the RSE and RPC at least knew were to look for
help and advice. Under the proposed new one, the boundaries
about the level of detail in which the RSWG and RSAB can and
should get involved is unclear although probably there are
enough checks built in and that trying to specify that further
would just lead to prospective micro-management if not madness.
I also think that provisions about having the RPC represented in
the RSWG and on the RSAB will probably be sufficient to catch
obvious difficulties, especially in the light of RPC experience
with i18n issues in the 5+ years since RFC 1997 was completed.
However, I wonder if there should be a formal or informal
provision for i18n-specific review of proposed actions by the
RSWG/RSAB that might involve non-ASCII (and, more specifically,
non-Latin-derived) writing systems. While solutions may not be
easy, the important thing is to spot possible issues and spot
them early. Martin and I both follow a non-IETF WG and mailing
list that has recently been forced into a whole new collection
of issues about markup and embedded text directionality.
Dealing well with those issues requires either significant
expertise (which might translate into additional resource
requirements for the RPC) or a decision that some languages,
writing systems, and cultures are just less important than
others (a decision that should not be made casually, much less
by accident).
And, if such a review is appropriate -- even if it stays out of
the RFCEDDP documents and we trust that the RSWG and/or RSAB
will ask for one if needed-- where does it happen? This
so-called Directorate may include the appropriate people, but,
as I understand the rules, it is currently constrained to
offering advice to the ART ADs and not to the wider community
the RFC Editor Function.
john
[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/gpAMRVpH3x6cJcTTlDkWCsMWdeI
--On Friday, February 25, 2022 13:01 -0800 Pete Resnick
<resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2022, at 4:21, Martin Dürst via Datatracker wrote:
>
>> I have contributed to the IAB's RFC Editor Future Development
>> Program (sorry,
>> that's the official title) and therefore to this document.
>> I'm not sure why
>> Pete Resnik picked me as the reviewer
>
> The only reason I picked you was because you were next on my
> list; I hadn't checked the acknowledgements to see if you were
> a contributor. A good reminder to me to do so in the future.
> Thanks for doing the review anyway.
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
