At 02:10 20/08/2011, Hector Santos wrote:
I have to admit I like the idea of the Glossary web site with the
consolidation of divest material.
Hector,
complexity is often confused with complication which further adds to
complexity. The most usual complication comes from the use of ill
located notions irt of their supporting concepts (i.e. absolute
mental pollution) and the use of the same terms with different
meanings (relative mental pollution). So, any work, should start in
adopting a common glossary. This is usually helped by the Charter.
However, the post-IDNA2008 era calls for many people to adapt their
reading of old protocols and in turn adapt protocols to the resulting
new possibilities (new meanings for old terms, new terminologies).
This goes beyond what a Charter can do.
I thought it had some awkward reading injection of material that
probably was not necessary, maybe little unprofessional,
IUCG is not for professional engineers, but for involved users :-) A
liaison between two worlds who are somewhat suspicious of the other....
but overall for such a divest environment on the Internet, the basic
Glossary idea was interesting that I found to be informational. I
think it will gives people, especially for the new, a better sense
of the global connected nature of the various groups.
Right now the list includes 772 definitions. It would be
extraordinary if there were no conflicts, doublons, needed updates.
The first part is more complex to summarize. IAB partly engaged in a
parallel work.
If anything, there was an initial perception of commercial interest,
but that didn't seem to be the case.
I would be interested in knowing why do you get that feeling? IUCG is
a response to RFC 3869 calls for help: "The IAB believes that it
would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to
increase their funding of both basic research and applied research
relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going
forward.". It is a place for non-commercial private sponsors to bring
their experience and possible expertise to contribute to basic and
more ofter applied research relating to the Internet.
But your email was definitely presented that way or at least its how
I read it for a person who didn't know much about all these
groups. Maybe didn't help if that was not the intent.
Anyway, I hope the "legal" stuff can be settled. It would be a
resource link for me.
I use to say "I do not ask my phone to be democratic or legal, I ask
it to work". We worked out the IDNA2008 consensus by the end of 2010
and nothing has moved yet on the IETF/IAB side. On the "JEDI"s side
we have advanced towards prototyping an IUI (Intelligent/Internet Use
Interface) as a prerequisite for a documentation. However, we also
see that we are blocked by the IETF's and Unicode's lacks of
simplicity (RFC 3439). So, we have to start back at the fundamental
gloassary "simplicity point" for everyone. Moreover than we have to
be at least pluri-lingual.
At the same time we are hampered by the ISOC's copyrights. Responses
of IAB to my post-IDNA2008 appeal for clarification, made clear that
our area (Intelligent Use Interface) is actually outside of the IETF
scope, but interacts with it. This alllows to explore that area as
being public domain, but if we want to technically keep in touch (the
very nature of an interface) we have to interact with the IETF
copyrighted world. Otherwise we certainly could hack the Internet and
turn the JEDIs into some Anonymous. We might go faster, but network
stability would be endangered.
jfc
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
