Subject: [I18nrp] proposed charter for an Internationalization Directorate

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:29:18 -0600

As we have discussed on this list and at IETF 102, to date
internationalization (i18n) reviews at the IETF have been dependent upon
the occasional attention and uncoordinated involvement of particular
individuals. We have identified several problems with the status quo: we
don't reliably identify documents needing review, we often identify
issues only late in the standardization process, we have a small and
static set of reviewers, the reviewers have not been organized to
function as a team, and we are not training new reviewers or educating
specification authors in a systematic fashion. In addition, we have not
succeeded in fixing smaller problems with existing i18n technologies (an
activity that can be seen as a particular kind of review or as bordering
on a study group or expert team).

By my reading, we have broad agreement that an Internationalization
Directorate, if properly scoped and managed, could help to improve the
i18n aspects of IETF specifications. Therefore I have written the
following draft charter, and I would like to request feedback from folks
on this list.

Thanks!

Peter

###

Internationalization Directorate (i18ndir)

The Internationalization Directorate is a specialized advisory group
that assists the Area Directors of the Applications and Real-Time Area
with regard to internationalization, in accordance with RFC 2418.

In support of a global Internet, the IETF has long worked on
internationalization of the Internet through various technologies,
including but not limited to text encodings (RFC 20, RFC 3629, RFC
5198), character sets (RFC 2277), language tags (RFC 5646), URIs (RFC
3986), domain names (RFC 5890), email addresses (RFC 6530) and headers
(RFC 5335), HTTP headers (RFC 7231, RFC 8187), and usernames and
passwords (RFC 8265). Because the appropriate use of these technologies
in any particular Internet protocol is not always clear-cut,
specifications developed within the IETF often need to be reviewed by
individuals with competence in internationalization. Another sort of
review is required for adjustments to the underlying technologies
themselves, for instance handling issues with internationalized domain
names that arise because of updates to the Unicode standard.

The directorate consists of experienced members of the IETF and the
broader technical and language communities who have competence in
internationalization. The directorate reviews selected Internet-Drafts
with respect to common internationalization issues, provides guidance to
specification authors and working groups that re-use or ought to re-use
the aforementioned IETF technologies, works together on solutions to
narrowly scoped problems that arise with those technologies (while
deferring larger initiatives to separate working groups, if needed), and
advises Area Directors and other IETF stakeholders with regard to
internationalization. The directorate itself is responsible for
organizing its work processes, documenting recommended solutions to
common internationalization issues, and maintaining an effective team
through appropriate recruiting and training initiatives. However,
liaison activities with other standards development organizations (such
as the Unicode Consortium) are not directly in scope for the
directorate. In short, the internationalization directorate acts as a
consultative group of experts offering expertise and guidelines with
respect to internationalization within the IETF.

The directorate can be contacted by sending e-mail to [TBD] and the list
archives are available at [TBD].

###

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:45:59 +1200

Peter,

A good start IMHO.

"The directorate reviews selected Internet-Drafts..."
doesn't really tell the reader which drafts will be selected.

Should you also include a few words about how the directorate
interacts with the existing review process and in particular
with ARTART reviews? That's where I18N defects have their last
chance to be picked up.

Will the directorate be willing to do early reviews on request
from a WG?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

"Looks like a disaster; why wasn’t I invited?" - Eeyore (2018)

On 10/08/2018 04:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 14:56:22 -0600

Hi Brian, thanks for the review.

> doesn't really tell the reader which drafts will be selected.

I suppose they'd be I-Ds "that re-use or ought to re-use
the aforementioned IETF technologies" (paragraph 3) or that otherwise
have i18n implications. The exact criteria have yet to be defined (e.g.,
what the common i18n issues are, what keywords we'll search for manually
or automatically while identifying I-Ds to review, etc.).

> with ARTART reviews? That's where I18N defects have their last

Good point.

> Will the directorate be willing to do early reviews on request

The earlier the better!

Peter

---

From: "Jiankang Yao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:44:03 +0800

From: Peter Saint-Andre
Date: 2018-08-10 00:29
To: i18nrp
Subject: [I18nrp] proposed charter for an Internationalization Directorate

Hi Peter,
Thanks a lot for your good start.

>with regard to internationalization, in accordance with RFC 2418.

I hope that it is not just an  advisory group.
In short term, it is suggested to have a working group, and in long term, it can be an advisory group.

The reason is in the next paragraph.

>names that arise because of updates to the Unicode standard.

There are many Internationalization related RFCs, which you have listed.
Many experts are good at some of these RFCs, but few are good at all of them.
Many may not understand the internationalization issues in the same level.
This mean that we lack a framework document which covers all RFCs above.
This document may cover
1. what internationalziation may cover (can discuss and summarize the current internationalized  related RFCs, what are these RFCs' relationship)
2. what kind of issues will be reviewed
3. how the new drfat to be reviewed 

That means that we need a WG to produce such document.
Through the WG discussion, there are 2 benefits.
1) we can try to understand the internationalization in the same level
2) we can have a guideline RFC for future internationalization related document and its review.

for your kind reference.

BTW, RFC5335 has been Obsoleted by RFC 6532 .

Thanks.

Best Regards.

Jiankang Yao

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:09:58 -0500

> term, it can be an advisory group.

To be clear, I believe the intention here is to form a directorate to 
perform the functions that Peter has described. As a parallel but 
separate effort, we need to figure out how we want to create a framework 
to benefit both document authors and directorate members. I don't think 
we want to hold up getting the directorate in place on creating this 
framework.

/a

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 15:44:29 -0600

Hi Jiankang, thanks for your feedback.

In general I agree with Adam's reply. However, I've provided further
thoughts below.

On 8/9/18 7:44 PM, Jiankang Yao wrote:
> *From:* Peter Saint-Andre <mailto:[email-masked]>
> *Date:* 2018-08-10 00:29
> *To:* i18nrp <mailto:[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* [I18nrp] proposed charter for an Internationalization Directorate
>  
> Hi Peter,

Although it's possible that we might need both, a working group usually
needs to produce well-scoped technical documents within a limited period
of time, whereas the directorate would be a standing team that
continually reviews Internet-Drafts (and provides other kinds of
guidance) for as long as internationalization issues arise.

> 1. what internationalziation may cover (can discuss and summarize the
> current internationalized  related RFCs, what are these RFCs' relationship)

At IETF 102, we talked about the need for documentation of common
internationalization problems and solutions. I believe we had rough
agreement that initially such documentation could be created in a less
formal way (e.g., on a wiki), and that eventually such documentation
might or might not evolve into an Internet-Draft or RFC.

What you propose has a much wider scope: it would be a sort of "grand
unified theory" of internationalization at the IETF. Although that might
be helpful in guiding our future work, I think it would be difficult to
agree on the success criteria for such a document, or to reach consensus
on a framework that might be somewhat theoretical and not closely
related to practical engineering problems.

My perspective is that we have a semi-urgent need to establish a
functioning directorate, and a less urgent desire to define a larger
framework for all of our i18n technologies - and that these two
initiatives have different goals, timelines, and chances of success.
Therefore it seems best to address them separately.

> BTW, RFC5335 has been Obsoleted by RFC 6532 .

Ah, I missed that, thanks for the error report.

Peter