ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language

2014-03-10 08:30:12
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

The IETF had a discussion about languages while Harald was chair.  In my
opinion, every dimension of the issues was discussed at that time.  I do
not think that anything new has been raised for use to reopen the
discussion.


I don't think that is a helpful approach. Rather too often in IETF process
it turns out that there is never a time to raise an issue. It is either too
early or too late.

From a practical point of view any proposal to use more than one language
would have to propose a mechanism for providing translation between them.
This would require the proposal to consider both the cost of providing the
translators and identifying a group of translators that is capable of
meeting IETF needs.


Leaving aside the cost issue, there simply isn't any group of interpreters
that is going to be able to provide simultaneous live translation of IETF
working group activities. I don't think any of us want to work from
prepared remarks submitted to the translators in advance.

I know that there are translators who can and do provide such services at
technical conferences, I worked with them when I helped kill COMDEX by
giving the keynote address at the last COMDEX in Brazil. But a keynote
address is a very different matter to a working group discussion on the
interpretation of the criticality bit in X.509.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>