Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11: Question on possible conflict between language feature tag and data provider language, defined in section 3.1.6

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Tue, 22 October 2013 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9DD11E846A for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.624
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TpwS63k67J+e for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFB321E8088 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.254.200] ([80.92.115.161]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Mh5h7-1VLlxJ3oAr-00MIQg for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:43:13 +0200
Message-ID: <52669D2B.8000402@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:43:39 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C41E829@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAOPrzE1SgvCGP8R2B=pUzz9KjPjOyHY-x4wHu-h4JP7FWUCVKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOPrzE1SgvCGP8R2B=pUzz9KjPjOyHY-x4wHu-h4JP7FWUCVKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Dg6eThNcw4pqeSiG/WzPjD+nRJZNx5Xsw8WFQNQVRT3psiD8z54 GzNGidYiTa9TUMJOhjo5JaP3Y/NRmpPnydMuaEzeZf16+rCGptZsgZ0bUjncDm/NzmgQ0pI BeSEBMc+NdCtODy/rJOkyUbfkRrSO/xK2rBkskmNHU/plhdqCGb6zDLcDFlKUb2+kEzfahE uLrvTCVlrERHqupvAxWlQ==
Cc: "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11: Question on possible conflict between language feature tag and data provider language, defined in section 3.1.6
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:43:20 -0000

Hi Christer,

I agree with Brian's response and I added a few lines of text to clarify 
the relationship between the proposed element and the language tag.

Here is the text:


-----


3.1.6.  Data Provider Languages(s) Supported

    Data Element:  Data Provider Language(s) supported

    Use:  Required.

    XML Element:  <Language>

    Description:  The language used by the entity at the Data Provider
       Contact URI as an alpha 2-character code as defined in ISO
       639-1:2002 Codes for the representation of names of languages --
       Part 1: Alpha-2 code Multiple instances of this element may occur.
       Order is significant; preferred language should appear first.  The
       content MUST reflect the languages supported at the contact URI.

       Note that the 'language' media feature tag, defined in RFC 3840
       [RFC3840] and the more extensive language negotiation mechanism
       proposed with [I-D.gellens-negotiating-human-language] are

-----

Is this OK for you? Do you think it will help to clarify?

Ciao
Hannes



On 08/06/2013 05:33 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> That feature is not the spoken or signed or typed language in the media.
>   There is an ongoing effort to provide a facility to negotiate those,
> but even still, it's useful to know in advance of a call what languages
> the service provider can handle.
>
> Brian
>
> On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>     Hi,____
>
>     __ __
>
>     In SIP, it is possible to indicate supported languages using the
>     “language” media feature tag, defined in RFC 3840.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Is the semantics different from the data provider language defined
>     in the additional-data draft?____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Do we need to say something about which/how to use?____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Regards,____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Christer____
>
>     __ __
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>