Internationalization Review Procedures (i18nrp) BoF
IETF 102 Montreal

Chairs: Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre
Minute Taker: Matt Miller
Jabber Scribe: Ted Hardie



  1. Administrivia (NOTE WELL, minute taker, Jabber scribe, blue sheets, agenda bash) (2m)

  2. Goals and non-goals for the BoF (5m)

  3. Current review procedures (5m)

    • Chair presentation
    • Discussion
  4. Problems with current review procedures (10m)

    • Chair presentation
    • Discussion
  5. Non-mutually-exclusive proposals

    • Internationalization directorate (20m)
      • Strawman proposal (chairs)
      • Discussion
    • Internationalization considerations RFC (15m)
      • Strawman proposal (chairs)
      • Discussion
  6. Next steps and action items (5m)

After administrivia, chairs presented on current review procedures and problems with current procedures (see


(Speakers: AC - Alissa Cooper, AM - Alexey Melnikov, AR - Adam Roach, AS - Andrew Sullivan, BL - Barry Leiba, CN - Chris Newman, DT - Dave Thaler, DY - Dan York, HA - Harald Alvestrand, JK - John Klensin, JL - John Levine, MN - Mark Nottingham, PR - Pete Resnick, PSA - Peter St. Andre, SC - Stuart Cheshire, TH - Ted Hardie, WS - Wendy Seltzer, YY - Yoshiro Yoneya)

Other problems not in the chair slides (slide 10)?

Chairs then laid out the two strawman proposals:



It was heard that "triaging is relatively easy", but is that documented somewhere? (DY)

There have been attempts in the past, why would this succeed where others have failed? (BL)

This is proposed to be an ART area directorate; ART ADs would be responsible for its management. (AC)

How would this directorate gain and maintain diversity (most of the audience in the room is European or North American)? (YY)

Other comments:

I18N "RFC" (or other documentation)


Is a goal to build future members of the directorate? (BL)

This document might need to include instructions to authors for what to look for in their documents. (BL)

Issues similar to HTTP, this effort might have an issue where the team is overwhelmed; a BCP can help set expectations. (MN)

Similar to RFC style guide and MIB doctor: Might start with a dynamic document (e.g., Wiki), then perhaps some or all of it evolves into an RFC once a stable set of material is identified. (DT)

Similar to those qualified to review HTTP work (a handful of individuals), individuals qualified to review i18n issues independent of language are even rarer. (JK)

There are a number of bodies that want to own i18n work. What will the IETF do when someone comes in claiming expertise and says we should abandon our efforts? (AS)

Flag the notion of exclusivity on doing this work; help inspire external participants to expand from their language space into our networking space. (AC)

The IETF has a large number of people with a deep understanding of network architecture, but very small number of people with a deep understanding of language issues. The issue isn't to make things better, but when we have sufficient understanding to review documents. (JK)