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

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 5:04 AM -0800 1/8/18, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:

>  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)?

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.


>  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.

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