Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06.txt> (Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time Communications) to Proposed Standard

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gunnar,

Please see inline.

At 11:34 AM +0100 2/13/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote:

>  I have reviewed 
> draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06.txt 
> and have composed a proposed edited version 
> adjusted for my comments below, and 
> additionally for some minor editorial issues.
>
>  The attached version is a rough edit of the txt 
> file version. Accepted edits need to be re-done 
> in the XML version.
>
>  Please use a diff to find all edit proposals. 
> The main ones are listed below with reference 
> to sections in the files.
>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  1. Inexact wording about the syntax of the new attributes.
>
>  Sections 5 and 5.2,  .
>
>  The text sometimes indicate that the value of 
> the attributes is a language tag, and sometimes 
> a language tag with an optionally appended 
> asterisk. The syntax shown in section 5.2 is 
> also not in alignment with the syntax shown in 
> section 6. In 5.2 it is shown without the 
> optional asterisk, and in 6 with the optional 
> asterisk.

I will delete the syntax description from 5.2 to avoid confusion.

>
>  Proposed action:  Make the attribute syntax 
> equal in sections 5.2 and 6. Make sure that 
> when "Language-Tag" is mentioned, it is only 
> about the language tag part of the attribute 
> value, and when the attribute value is 
> mentioned, it is about the complete value, 
> including the optional modifier.
>
>  Changes:
>
>  Last line in 5.  Change "be" to "contain"
>
>  Add [ asterisk ] last in both syntax lines in 5.2.

I will adjust the text in the last line of 5 and 
clarify the text for the use of "the values" in 
5.2.

>
>  Multiple small changes in section 5.2. to 
> adjust wording to be more exact. - See attached 
> draft.
>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  2. Reminiscense of earlier syntax.
>
>  In a couple of places, there is wording left 
> over from a recently abandoned syntax for the 
> attributes. In an earlier version, each 
> attribute value could contain multiple 
> language-tags. Now, there is just one 
> language-tag in each attribute value.
>
>  Changes:
>  At end of page 6:
>  Old:  "The values constitute a list of languages in preference order"
>
>  New: "The values from multiple attributes 
> constitute a list of languages in preference 
> order per direction"
>
>  At end of Section 5.3, the comparison with 
> Accept-Language syntax is not valid anymore.
>
>  Delete: "(similar to SIP Accept-Language syntax)"

OK.

>
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  3. Inexact wording about O/A procedure in section 5.2
>
>  The answers are called "accepted language", but 
> within paranthesis it is mentioned that it is 
> only in most cases that it is selected from the 
> offer. More suitable is then to just call it 
> just "language":
>
>  Old:
>  " In an answer, 'humintlang-send' is the accepted language the answerer
>  will send (which in most cases is one of the languages in the offer's
>  'humintlang-recv'), and 'humintlang-recv' is the accepted language
>  the answerer expects to receive (which in most cases is one of the
>  languages in the offer's 'humintlang-send')."
>
>  New:
>
>  "In an answer, 'humintlang-send' indicates the language the answerer
>  will send (which in most cases is one of the languages in the offer's
>  'humintlang-recv'), and 'humintlang-recv' indicates the language
>  the answerer expects to receive (which in most cases is one of the
>  languages in the offer's 'humintlang-send')."

I will delete the two instances of "accepted" in 5.3.

>
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  4. Inexact note at end of section 5.2.
>
>  The note at end of 5.2 has a short discussion 
> about accepted media as if it should possibly 
> be influenced by the matching languages. This 
> discussion is not really valid. A media section 
> is a request to set up a media stream, 
> unrelated to the language indications. The 
> devices should deny media because they are not 
> needed for language communication. This is made 
> more clear in an extended note.
>
>  Old:
>
>      "Note that media and language negotiation might result in more media
>      streams being accepted than are needed by the users (e.g., if more
>      preferred and less preferred combinations of media and language are
>      all accepted)."
>
>  New:
>
>  "Note that media and language negotiation might result in more media
>  streams being accepted than are needed by the users for language
>  exchange (e.g., if more preferred and less preferred combinations
>  of media and language are all accepted). This is normal and accepted,
>  because the humintlang attribute is not intended to restrict media
>  streams to be used only for language exchange."

I'll clarify the text.

>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  5. Make use of the asterisk modifier on media 
> level with session scope also for media level 
> purposes
>
>  The asterisk modifier optionally appended on 
> attribute values has in the original -06 draft 
> only a session effect. It is specified to 
> indicate if the call should be rejected or not 
> if languages do not match. It can be appended 
> to any humintlang attribute in the whole SDP 
> without any change in effect. This independancy 
> of placement indicates that it is wrongly 
> placed. With the current definition, it should 
> be a single separate session level attribute. 
> Instead of specifying a separate session level 
> attribute, it is proposed that the asterisk 
> gets an expanded definition, so that its 
> placement conveys meaning of value for the 
> successful language negotiation.
>
>  It has been discussed in the SLIM WG that the 
> specification lacks two functions, required by 
> the specifications by other bodies who are 
> waiting for the results of SLIM real-time work. 
> (e.g. 3GPP TS 22.228 and ETSI TR 103 201). 3GPP 
> TS 22.228 requires "The system should be able 
> to negotiate the user's desired language(s) and 
> modalities, per media stream and/or session, in 
> order of preference." Thus negotiation
>  with preference indication within the session 
> is required, not only within each media.
>  ETSI TR 103 201 says "the Total Conversation 
> user should be able to indicate the preferred 
> method of communication for each direction of 
> the session, so that the call-taker can be 
> selected appropriately or an appropriate 
> assisting service be invoked. " Saying 
> "preferred" means
>  that it should also be possible to indicate less preferred alternatives.
>
>  The most urgent of these functions can be 
> fulfilled in a simple but sufficient way by 
> extending the meaning of the asterisk. That is 
> the possibility to indicate a difference in 
> preference between languages in different 
> modalities. There is an apparent risk that many 
> calls will start and continue in an 
> inconvenient modaity if this differentiation is 
> not introduced. See the proposed replaced 
> section 5.3 and extended examples in section 
> 5.5.
>
>  Earlier discussions on this topic has not 
> resulted in a sufficiently simple mechanism. 
> The extended use of the asterisk proposed here 
> is intended to introduce the required 
> simplification, and yet meet the most urgent 
> needs.

The WG discussed various proposals regarding the 
asterisk and did not reach a conclusion to change 
what is in the draft.

>
>
>  Changes:
>
>  In 5.2
>
>  Old:
>
>  "In an offer, each language tag value MAY have an asterisk appended as
>  the last character (after the language tag).  The asterisk indicates
>  a request by the caller to not fail the call if there is no language
>  in common."
>
>  New:
>
>  "In an offer or answer, each attribute value 
> MAY have a modifier appended as the last 
> character (after the Language-Tag). This 
> specification defines one value for the 
> modifier; an asterisk ("*"). The asterisk 
> included in a humintlang attribute value in the 
> SDP indicates a lower preference for the 
> indicated language and a request by the caller 
> to not reject the call if there is no language 
> in common."
>
>  In 5.3. The whole section replaced by:
>
>  "
>  5.3.  Preferences within the session
>
>  It is of high importance for a smooth start of a call that the
>  answering party is answering the call using the best matching
>  language(s) and modality(ies) suitable for the continuation of the call.
>  Switching language and modality during the call by agreement between
>  the participants is often time consuming. Without support of detailed
>  language and modality negotiation the particiants may have a tendency
>  to continue the call in the initial language and modality even if a
>  more convenient common language and modality combination is available.
>  In order to support the decision on which of the available language(s)
>  and modality(ies) to use initially in the call, a simple two-level
>  preference indicator is specified here for inclusion as a modifier
>  in the humintlang attribute values. The preference indicator is also
>  used as an indicator that the call SHOULD be established even if no
>  language match is found.
>
>  The asterisk ("*") is used as a preference indicator within the session.
>  Low relative preference for a language and modality to be used in the
>  session SHOULD be indicated by appending an asterisk after the language
>  tag in the attribute value. This indication from the offering party
>  SHOULD be interpreted by the answering party as a request to use a
>  higher preferred language and modality when answering the call if
>  available, but otherwise accept a lower preferred language and
>  modality combination if that is available. When satisfying languages
>  and modalities in the offer is regarded to be so important that the
>  whole call SHOULD be rejected if no match can be provided in the
>  session in one or both directions, then the asterisk shall not be
>  appended on any indicated language in the whole session description.
>  For the case when no specific preference is desired, but the offering
>  party does not want the call to be rejected, all indicated languages
>  and modalities SHOULD have an asterisk appended.
>
>  In an answer, the language(s) and modality(ies) that the answering
>  party will use initially in the answer SHOULD be indicated without
>  an appended asterisk. Any language and modality available for later
>  use in the session MAY be indicated by a language tag with an
>  appended asterisk.
>
>  In the case when more than two parties participate in the call,
>  the language and modality indications provided to each party
>  SHOULD be the sum of the indications from the other parties.
>
>  The use of the preference indicator as specified above does
>  not provide for distinguishing between the case when two or
>  more language/modality combinations in the same direction
>  are desired for use simultaneously versus the case when two
>  or more language/modality combinations for the same directions
>  are provided as selectable alternatives without specific
>  preference differentiation. The context or other specifications
>  may introduce the possibility to distinguish between these cases.
>  When a party in a call has no indications that two or more
>  language/modality combinations for each direction are desired
>  simultaeously in the call, the party SHOULD assume that
>  satisfying one is sufficient.
>
>  Other specifications may add other attribute value modifiers than
>  the asterisk. If an unknown modifier is detected, the modifier
>  SHALL be ignored."
>
>  In section 6.
>
>  Reference to semantics in the attribute 
> registrations are expanded from 5.2 to 5.2-5.3.
>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  6. The cases in the "Silly states" section 5.4 are not all silly.
>
>  Section 5.4 contains some proposed 
> interpretations of unusual language indications.
>
>  They are not silly, but just unusual. Therefore 
> change the name of the section to
>
>  "5.4 Unusual indications"
>
>  The section contains too weak specification 
> about what to do with the unusual indications. 
> That may cause a risk that a user who gets 
> accustomed to one behavior in contact with 
> certain UAs, suddeenly gets another behavior in 
> contact with another UA.
>
>  Change:
>  Old:
>
>  "An offer MUST NOT be created where the language does not make sense
>  for the media type.  If such an offer is received, the receiver MAY
>  reject the media, ignore the language specified, or attempt to
>  interpret the intent (e.g., if American Sign Language is specified
>  for an audio media stream, this might be interpreted as a desire to
>  use spoken English)."
>
>  To:
>
>  "An offer MUST NOT be created where the language does not make sense
>  for the media type.  If such an offer is received, the receiver SHOULD
>  ignore the language specified."

OK.

>
>
>  Also add the following at the end of 5.4 to 
> explain the choice of interpretation of a 
> spoken/written language tag in a video medium 
> to be a request to see the speaker rather than 
> having text captions overlayed on video.
>
>  "There is no difference between language tags for spoken and written
>  languages. The spoken or written language tag indicated for a video
>  stream could therefore be interpreted as a capability or request to
>  use text captions overlayed on the video stream. The interpretation
>  according to this specification SHALL however be to have a view of
>  the speaker."

I don't think we need to talk about how to 
interpret non-signed language tags in a video 
stream.

>
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  7. Examples section 5.5 requires expansion
>
>  Section 5.5 Examples has very little 
> explanations and show just a few cases. The 
> section is proposed to be expanded, with O/A 
> examples with descriptions and alternative 
> outcomes in order to more thoroughly describe 
> the intended use.
>
>  See 5.5 in the the attached file for the proposed expansion.
>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  8. Include more fields for attribute registration from 4566bis
>
>  Section 6 has the form for attribute 
> registration by IANA. There are a couple of 
> fields missing that will be important for use 
> of the specification in the WebRTC environment. 
> Include these fields if that is allowable 
> according to current IANA procedures and if 
> that does not delay the publication of this 
> draft. These fields are needed for use of text 
> media in WebRTC.
>
>  Change:
>
>  In two locations from:
>      "Usage Level:  media"
>
>  to:
>
>      "Usage Level:  media, dcsa(subprotocol)"
>
>  Insert in two locations in the registration forms:
>  "Mux Category: NORMAL"


I think this suggestion exceeds a simple 
editorial change, and therefore would need to be 
discussed on the WG list with WG consensus before 
it can be adopted.  I would also note that these 
fields can be added to the attribute registration 
later, according to the rules for the registry 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml), 
which I believe are "Specification Required."

>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  With these proposed modifications accepted I am 
> convinced that the result will be useful for 
> its purpose.
>
>  Regards
>
>  Gunnar Hellstrom
>
>  -----------------------------------------
>  Gunnar Hellström
>  Omnitor
>  [e-mail]
>  [phone]
>
>
>
>
>  Den 2017-02-06 kl. 16:27, skrev The IESG:
>>  The IESG has received a request from the Selection of Language for
>>  Internet Media WG (slim) to consider the following document:
>>  - 'Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time Communications'
>>     <draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06.txt> as Proposed
>>  Standard
>>
>>  The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>  final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>  [e-mail] mailing lists by 2017-02-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>  sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>>  beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>>  Abstract
>>
>>
>>      Users have various human (natural) language needs, abilities, and
>>      preferences regarding spoken, written, and signed languages.  When
>>      establishing interactive communication ("calls") there needs to be a
>>      way to negotiate (communicate and match) the caller's language and
>>      media needs with the capabilities of the called party.  This is
>>      especially important with emergency calls, where a call can be
>>      handled by a call taker capable of communicating with the user, or a
>>      translator or relay operator can be bridged into the call during
>>      setup, but this applies to non-emergency calls as well (as an
>>      example, when calling a company call center).
>>
>>      This document describes the need and a solution using new SDP stream
>>      attributes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  The file can be obtained via
>>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/
>>
>>  IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/ballot/
>>
>>
>>  No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>>  The document contains these normative downward references.
>>  See RFC 3967 for additional information:
>>       draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat: 
>> Interworking between the Session Initiation 
>> Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging 
>> and Presence Protocol (XMPP): One-to-One Text 
>> Chat (None - )
>>  Note that some of these references may already 
>> be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.
>>
>
>  --
>  -----------------------------------------
>  Gunnar Hellström
>  Omnitor
>  [e-mail]
>  [phone]
>
>
>
>
>  Attachment converted: 
> TiLand:draft-ietf-slim-nego#41BE1A.txt 
> (TEXT/R*ch) (0041BE1A)
>  _______________________________________________
>  SLIM mailing list
>  [e-mail]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Voltaire said "The art of government consists of taking as much money
as possible from one party of citizens to give to the other."  The
difference between the dominant political parties is which groups they
assign which roles.