Subject: RE: Examples of translated RFCs

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:55:00 -0500

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin writes...

> So , IMHO, the IETF urgency is today the other way around:
> incorporating into RFC standards, practices or tables authoritatively
> written or thought in another language than English, or in English
> using normative non-ASCII art drafts or using term in a meaning
> foreign to the IETF.

If all RFCs are written in English, basically so that there is at most
one additional language in which one must be fluent to understand and
implement the protocols described therein, wouldn't it defeat the
purpose to have normative references written in other languages?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:49:28 +0100

>purpose to have normative references written in other languages?

Dear Nelson,
with all due respect, you may have noted that there are around 20.000 
stable acknowldged language entities in the world (actually far more) 
and quite a few SSDOs. Only the IETF uses English ASCII Courier 
typing for its texts and Arts. This means that statistically a 
normative idea for the Internet has 90% chance to be eventually 
thought or initially written in non English ASCII Courier typing and Arts.

At the beginning 100% were in English ASCII Courier. Because the 
Internet was designed by English ASCII Courier people for English 
ASCII Courier applications. But the more we go, the more the 
advantage you quote becomes a barrier, as non English ASCII Courier 
people, applications, standards share into the Internet. This is why 
we have to reconsider it, to keep it as a blessing (as it does permit 
to have a pivot framework), but to stop it preventing innovation. It 
is a tool, not the architectural unilateral model and core value it 
has become.

This is particularly urgent in BCPs. Because Network Managers and Law 
makers tend to write laws, rules and procedures in the user language 
rather than in a language they and the users do not understand. If 
you want to quote as authoritative a local procedure, you are to 
quote it in its language (and then you may translate it beniffiting 
from its authority). Not doing it is balkanizing the Internet; 
splitting the IETF English ASCII Courier Legacy Internet from the 
many various local Internets the IETF would create this way in being 
unable to support the world's multilingual reality.

Globally, the world normative references are today 99,9 % not written 
in English ASCII Courier. And English is not necessarily the second 
language people have. By far and this will probably increase in the 
coming decades. I know it is hard to accept as an English speaker. 
But please remember that one century ago the decision taking world 
spoke French, the same as the technical world of today speaks 
English. We had to learn to live with the change: you will certainly 
will too ... and learn how rewarding this may be.
jfc