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

Randall Gellens <> Mon, 08 January 2018 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F40129C59; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:47:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <m2AH1Eya42rN>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m2AH1Eya42rN; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2308D127275; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:48:26 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240604d6795e15f93b@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:47:51 -0800
To: Mirja Kühlewind <>, The IESG <>
From: Randall Gellens <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:47:55 -0000

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

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

    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

>  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 

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.