Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:35:58 -0400

Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting in Dallas?

Barry

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>>  On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between the mail
>>>>  problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not saying it's
>>>>  wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me.
>>>>
>>>>  The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality in the
>>>>  solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on why
>>>>  people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do you think
>>>>  there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language tags? Do
>>>>  you see a common implementor community? A common protocol development
>>>>  community?
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hi SLIM list participants:
>>>
>>>  I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion (namely the
>>>  SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other comment
>>>  (quoted above)?
>>
>>
>>  I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be
>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two things.
>
>
> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two areas, while
> others are interested in both.  Obviously, different solutions are needed
> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve one of
> the two problems.
>
> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are aspects of the
> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use different
> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group.  I see some
> benefit and no harm.
>
> --
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which
> there is no good evidence either way.        --Bertrand Russell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:17:55 -0700

I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this.  My recollection of
the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF.  Were you expecting a
revised proposed charter?

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:01 -0700

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:39 -0700

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:00:24 -0500

I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be 
useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input to 
such a BOF.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote:

>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language 
>>>>>> tags?
>>>>>> Do
>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion 
>>>>> (namely
>>>>> the
>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two 
>>> areas,
>>> while
>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve 
>>> one
>>> of
>>> the two problems.
>>>
>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are 
>>> aspects of
>>> the

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:39:53 -0700

> useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input to

Hi Ben,

In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both
drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered
advantages and none offered any real disadvantages.  Someone mentioned
that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested in
one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a problem
(it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not the
case here).  We already know that some participants are interested in
both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one are
able to offer constructive suggestions for the other.  So, I don't see any
reason to not move forward.  If there are other changes you'd like to see,
we can talk about them.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:37:07 -0500

On 13 Apr 2015, at 2:39, Randall Gellens wrote:

> case here).

I recall mentioning a couple:

-- There is controversy about the real-time solution. This can get in 
the way of getting less controversial deliverables done.  (Someone 
mentioned there is also controversy on the non-real-time solution. IMO, 
that makes things worse, not better.)

-- Experience has shown that keeping working group scopes as small as 
reasonably possible increases the odds of success. Putting two separate 
problems together in the same working group runs counter to that, so my 
personal preference is to avoid it unless the connection between the 
items is clear.

However, [see next comment]

> We already know that some participants are interested in

I don't object to moving forward with a combined proposal for the 
virtual BoF. We can see what people have to say about the combination in 
the BoF.

(I have had multiple people express skepticism about the combination [I 
think even some on the SLIM list], but I don't know if they will 
attend.)

>>> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this.  My 
>>> recollection
>>> of
>>>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting 
>>>> in
>>>> Dallas?
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not 
>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality 
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do 
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group.  I 
>>>>> see
>>>>> some
>>>>> benefit and no harm.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Randall Gellens

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:15:58 -0700

Hi Ben,

Being skeptical of the advantages is fine; I still haven't seen any reason
why doing both will be an actual problem.  Given how small the two drafts
are, I don't see that controversy over one will hinder the other.  Both
drafts have attracted some controversy, but certainly the real-time one
has more.

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:10:19 +0200

> drafts have attracted some controversy, but certainly the real-time one
Both has the need to clarify how the language tags can be used so that 
it is evident what modality they indicate.
An e-mailed video may contain a view of a talking person with audio of 
the speech embedded in an MPEG4 coding, and an embedded subtitle 
translation to another language as well as a box overlay with a sign 
language translation.
Then you would like to be able to clearly tell with separate language 
tags that it contains all these languages and modalities.
Currently sign languages have their own language tags where it is 
implicit that the medium is video, while for expressing language in text 
vs voice vs view of a talking person all embedded in video, there does 
not seem to exist any agreed separated coding.

The real-time side has the same need.

The core of that need should probably be solved in a group for 
definition of language tag syntax, but SLIM can work on two applications 
of it.
(CLUE would have the same need, have they solved it?)

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[email-masked]
+46 708 204 288