Subject: [Slim] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:04:06 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One question: I can't really imagine cases where the send and recv would be
used to indicate different things. Can you provide an example (and better
explain in the document why this 'complexity' was added)?

One purely editorial note: I think section 5.1 could simply be removed before
final publication as part of the reasoning is given in the intro already.

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:49:38 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/
It will be rare with different languages in the different directions for 
the same media.
It is more likely to find examples when it is important to only indicate 
hlang-send in one medium and only hlang-recv in another medium. Other 
available language indications all assume that you want to use the same 
modality and language in both directions. That does not fit the users 
who for example:

1. Can talk but not hear, so specifying e.g. hlang-send for spoken 
English in audio and hlang-recv for written English in text.
2. Can sign but not see (deaf-blind user) specifying e.g. hlang-send for 
American Sign Language and hlang-recv for written English in text.
3. Can hear but not talk clearly. specifying e.g. hlang-recv for spoken 
English in audio and hlang-send for written English in text.

An example of different languages in different directions of the same 
media that we have mentioned sometimes, but seen as a warning against 
having too rigid checking of matches rather than something to include in 
real negotiation, is use of languages that are close relatives, like 
Norweigan and Swedish. If I who speak Swedish, get a person talking 
Norwegian on the phone, I continue talking Swedish and the other person 
talks Norwegian, and we have a good conversation, understanding but not 
being able to speak the language of the other party. Getting a match for 
that case would require me to indicate hlang-send with spoken Swedish, 
and hlang-recv with spoken Swedish and  Norwegian. But I cannot imagine 
that I will remember to include receiving Norwegian in my settings, so 
it will instead be a matter for the matching and negotiation to accept 
the call and inform the users about the expected slight mismatch in 
languages in this call.  I think similar situations can appear between 
Italian and Spanish and other related language pairs.

Regards
Gunnar

> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

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

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:47:51 -0800

>  explain in the document why this 'complexity' was added)?

The Introduction attempts to explain it:

    Another example would be a user who is able to
    speak but is deaf or hard-of-hearing and and desires a voice stream
    to send spoken language plus a text stream to receive written
    language.

As part of rewording Section 5.2 in response to 
other IESG comments, I added the text in 
parentheses:

    When a media is intended for interactive communication
    using a language in one direction only (e.g., a user with difficulty
    speaking but able to hear who indicates a desire to send using text
    and receive using audio), either hlang-send or hlang-recv MAY be
    omitted.

>  final publication as part of the reasoning is given in the intro already.

Section 5.1 was added to both explain why and to 
try and avoid reopening the perennial SIP-vs-SDP 
debate that was raised over and over and over.  I 
don't mind if we delete it as part of final 
publication.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
                    --Plato