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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is NOT reasonabel
is a model that has the IETF formal infrastructure --
management, editors, etc. -- do the grunt work of making
design and writing decisions. We have amply demonstrated that
this latter model does not scale or is, at the least, too
expensive. (Well, I guess that's a form of not scaling?)
Actually, I am not sure that we have demonstrated that at all,
amply or not. But, if you say so...
Apologies. I thought we had some problems with covering IETF-related expenses.
So I thought it worth looking for expenses that could be eliminated from the
"overhead" category and moved back to the individual groups doing individual
work.
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?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf