John C Klensin wrote:
If an effort is worthy of adoption by the Internet, surely it
is reasonable to demand that it have enough support to be able
to obtain its own means of ensuring that the writing is
adequate.
We may find that there is more market for some protocols --and,
over time, for the Internet itself-- in areas where a very
significant fraction of the user and Engineering populations are
not good writers of English (even if they are able to read and
speak it well enough to participate effectively in the work of
the IETF).
Should the IETF do "niche" standards, for small markets? I think our history
has been that we have felt we generally should not and that our work is
primarily intended for "Internet scaling", not just "can operate using
Internet
technical infrastructure". Hence, an IETF effort needs to be able to
demonstrate a broad base of support.
Perhaps more to the point, does the IETF have a crystal ball capable of
assessing the long term impact of a particular piece of technical work? I've
heard plenty of claims of such insight, but often as not the markets then
moved in ways that utterly refute those claims.
I can cite plenty of exmaples where there was a room full of people calling for
something to be standardized, only to later find nobody out in the real world
cared one whit for the result. And there have also been cases where one lone
person was pushing something that subsequently become ubiquitous.
I think the best we can do is try and make sure the work we do appears to have
some semblance of relevance, is technically competent, is capable of being
properly specified, and is at least "mostly harmless". For all this to happpen
there has to be some evidence of core competence behind the proposal. But
trying to figure out whether or not there's a "broad base of support" doesn't
exactly play to our strengths IMO.
I think getting the writing quality of those
documents up to a standard where they can be broadly understood
is a community responsibility: if we take the position that
authors who cannot write clearly in English, or WGs where such
people dominate the technical work, are not welcome or able to
play, then we hurt the IETF and the Internet but pushing those
ideas and contributions somewhere else... perhaps even into
islands.
I agree, so it is a good thing that I did not say anything to suggest
otherwise.
Yes, but... There have to be people willing to assume the responsibility. The
cold hard fact is that we're all very busy people, and it is often the case
that volunteers willing and able to provide such help are lacking. When, not
if, that happens, I'm afraid the answer to the group in question needs to be
"no". No purpose is served by stringing people along in hopes that a situation
will change and previoussly unavailable help will magically appear.
What I HAVE said is that the process of getting and demonstrating sufficient
community support should include requiring acceptable writing of the
specifications. If an effort is not able to recruit sufficient resources for
that task, then I frankly question whether it has sufficient market "pull" to
succeed.
Exactly! While it would be nice to be able to offer support to all efforts of
merit, I see no indication we're in a position to do so.
Given the aggregate costs of producing even the most modest Internet standard,
the incremental cost of ensuring writing quality is quite small. However
concentrating all that expense for all RFCs into the RFC Editor is really
just a
way of relieving proponents from doing the work needed to create competent
work
and demonstrate support for it.
There's a reason the RFC Editor only gets inolved after standards documents are
approved. It is not the RFC Editor's job to turn editorially incompetent
specifications into competent ones, if for no other reason than such work
requires in-depth technical understanding of the subject area, something the
RFC Editor is simply not staffed for. (And I doubt we'be be willing to foot the
resulting bill if they were.)
Rather, the RFC Editor's job is to meld technically and editorially competent
specifications into a consistent series of editorially exceptional documents.
Having sufficient community support is an essential
requirement, if an effort it going to be successful.
Requiring that the effort demonstrate that support, in various
pragmatic ways, is merely reasonable.
Sure. But that is consistent with expecting design quality but
not necessarily the capability to easily write clear English.
I have tried to learn enough different languages -- and done badly with each
--
to appreciate the barrier that writing in English represents for non-native
English writers. That is why I am being careful not to claim that a
particular
author must be skilled, but rather that the *community* seeking IETF
standardization has the responsibility.
Agreed. it would be nice if it were otherwise, but wishing doesn't change
the situation any.
This should all be part of moving the burden of work back to
authors and working groups... where it belongs.
Up to a point. But the point that I think you are positing will
tend to drive some work --work for which there is good community
support and commitment-- out of the IETF. And that is not in
anyone's interest, IMO.
I would be interested in hearing your basis for this fear. Organizations and
individuals that are proponents for a piece of work can spend massive numbers
of
staff-hours, as well as travel and development expenses, but they cannot
afford
to do the English-based technical editing on their own? This somehow
represents
an unsurmountable barrier? How is that, John?
I think John is right that there's always a danger of losing valuable work -
good community support doesn't necessarily translate into these sorts of
resources being available. But I don't see how it can work any other way.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf