Hi, On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:06:39PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > BOF proposal and some of my comments on the subject. If you > push the topic off into a separate mailing list, you encourage > those who wish the topics (internationalization substantively > and/or how to handle i18n-related documents or proposals) would > just go away or that it would be handled by specialists and then > the rest of the community informed and that they can safely > ignore them. To pile on, I'm not willing to join yet another list to talk more about this topic. We've been gathering on little lists in corners for several years trying to get some traction, and it hasn't worked. And in my opinion, some of the remarks that I've seen in the IETF list thread make me think that going back into another corner to talk about this might even make the problem worse -- I see yet more claims about simplistic solutions that already seem to be failures. The only conclusion I really have about i18n at the IETF is that we're not qualified to do it properly because we can't be bothered. That suggests to me that Nico is right about one thing: that IDNA isn't that important (to any of the affected parties) is proved by the fact that nobody seems to want to make it work interoperably. Why, it's almost as though there are political and commercial incentives to make things break! If there is a BoF, I will show up assuming I don't have a conflict. But absent any evidence that trying the same thing again will improve matters, I don't think shunting this off from ietf@ is a good idea. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
