On 23-Apr-26 04:02, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Apr 22, 2026, at 15:59, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
So I think that Christian is correct that this is an "I
know it when I see it" kind of thing. In the end, the RPC (and perhaps
the RSAB) may go looking for advice for something novel.
My impression is that we want to give the RPC the option to include a
Latin version of non-Latin names, and beyond that it's fuzzy.
I think they can solve this problem when they run into it, and they
have enough sense to ask for help if they need it.
+1.
Or, in other words, besides being a “I know it when I see it” thing, this is a
“let’s cross the bridge when we get to it” thing.
The *policy* here should be that the RPC is tasked with working with the authors on
making the RFCs useful, in the presence of names that naturally use a script not
immediately fitting with "The RFC publication language is English.” (RFC 7322).
Exactly right. There are cases where leaving the terminology vague is the best
solution.
Brian
Grüße, Carsten
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
