Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4315132944 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:13:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K5M1sMS-dKk7 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C261326ED for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.60.54] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:17:27 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9dafe618-8d7d-76ba-91e2-41e3b5ce1f3b@omnitor.se> References: <3e945827-8310-56aa-b2e5-7a9405ff85c4@omnitor.se> <57690f3d-faa2-18d8-f270-8ae179f39e68@omnitor.se>

<9dafe618-8d7d-76ba-91e2-41e3b5ce1f3b@omnitor.se> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:13:16 -0700 To: Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= , Bernard Aboba From: Randall Gellens Cc: "slim@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Slim] Indication of modality alternatives in draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org 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: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:13:25 -0000 At 8:21 PM +0200 10/13/17, Gunnar Hellstr=F6m wrote: > Den 2017-10-13 kl. 16:58, skrev Bernard Aboba: > >> Gunnar said: >> >> "to negotiate which human language is selected=20 >> for possible use in each interactive media=20 >> stream" >> >> [BA] Given that audio can be muted, video can=20 >> be turned off, etc. aren't media streams=20 >> negotiated in SDP always for "possible" use? >> > That may be true, but we are not talking=20 > about the media flow in the streams. We are=20 > talking about the use for language. Our draft=20 > must reflect clearly what the language=20 > negotiation result really means. To me, "is=20 > selected for use in each interactive media=20 > stream" sounds as a promise that a negotiated=20 > language will actually be used. I don't think it reads that way at all. =46urther, the draft says, in 5.2: 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). This is not a problem. This explicitly states that not all negotiated media will necessarily be use= d. > That means that if two media streams end up=20 > with negotiated languages in the same=20 > direction, then both must be provided together.=20 > According to the discussions in the WG, that is=20 > not the desired result. The desired result=20 > should be that the users can select between use=20 > of the negotiated languages and usually use=20 > just one in each direction. We introduced=20 > "selected" some time ago, but it did not have=20 > the right effect. > > I will try to come up with new wording proposals. I think the wording is fine as it is. > >> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Gunnar=20 >> Hellstr=F6m=20 >> <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>=20 >> wrote: >> >> Change 2 is fine and solves part of the problem. >> >> But the current wording at my proposed change=20 >> 1 still tells me that if I offer English text=20 >> and English voice, it means that I have=20 >> selected to use both, and even stronger if an=20 >> answer contains English text and English=20 >> voice, then both will be used in the session,=20 >> exactly as you indicated was the problem with=20 >> the Lang attribute. We need to get the=20 >> possibility to select among alternatives=20 >> clearly into the draft so that not next=20 >> generation implementers also say that it is=20 >> too vague about what it means. >> >> The current wording at change one still says=20 >> that each interactive stream is used. >> >> How about: "to negotiate which >> human language is selected for possible=20 >> use in each interactive media stream." >> >> /Gunnar >> >> >> Den 2017-10-13 kl. 15:13, skrev Randall Gellens: >> >>> I think we've addressed the concerns that=20 >>> existed with earlier versions of the draft. >>> >>> At 2:57 PM +0200 10/13/17, Gunnar Hellstr=F6m wrote: >>> >>>> Den 2017-10-13 kl. 13:51, skrev Randall Gellens: >>>> >>>>> At 12:06 AM +0200 7/29/17, Gunnar Hellstr=F6m wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We have dealt with this topic before,=20 >>>>>> but rereading the draft indicates to me=20 >>>>>> that we still need some tuning of the=20 >>>>>> wording so that it is clear that the=20 >>>>>> language indications for the same=20 >>>>>> direction for different media are=20 >>>>>> alternatives with no requirements that=20 >>>>>> they need to be provided together, so that=20 >>>>>> it is allowed to answer with just one=20 >>>>>> media in each direction having language=20 >>>>>> indication. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested wording changes to make this clear: >>>>>> >>>>>> ---Change 1 in 5.2, first paragraph---------------- >>>>>> ------old text--------- >>>>>> This document defines two media-level attributes starting with >>>>>> 'hlang' (short for "human interactive language") to negotiate w= hich >>>>>> human language is selected for use in=20 >>>>>> each interactive media stream. >>>>>> ------------new text-------------------- >>>>>> This document defines two media-level attributes starting with >>>>>> 'hlang' (short for "human interactive language") to negotiate w= hich >>>>>> human language is selected for use in=20 >>>>>> each media stream used for interactive=20 >>>>>> language communication. >>>>>> -------end of change 1------- >>>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see how changing "each interactive=20 >>>> media stream" to "each media stream used for=20 >>>> interactive language communication" improves=20 >>>> anything. The term "interactive" implies=20 >>>> human interaction. >>>> >>> Yes, but human interaction can be to=20 >>> show things in video without being language=20 >>> communication. >>> What I am aiming at is to clearly indicate=20 >>> that the language indications are=20 >>> alternatives to select from. The wording "use=20 >>> in each interactive media stream" sounds to=20 >>> me that you MUST use all the agreed=20 >>> languages. That is the same mistake that you=20 >>> initially blamed the Lang SDP attribute to=20 >>> mean. We need to get away from that=20 >>> interpretation. My wording was intended to=20 >>> accomplish that, but it might have been too=20 >>> weak. The key word is "used" that is intended=20 >>> to mean that if a media stream is selected to=20 >>> be used for language communication then the=20 >>> agreed language is the one to be used. >>> So, I prefer my wording, or if you can=20 >>> create something even more clear that we are=20 >>> talking about alternatives to select from. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----Change 2 in 5.2, third paragraph ------ >>>>> ----old text------ >>>>> In an answer, 'hlang-send' is the language the answerer will send= if >>>>> using the media for language (which in most cases is one of the >>>>> languages in the offer's 'hlang-recv'), and 'hlang-recv' is the >>>>> language the answerer expects to receive in the media (which in = most >>>>> cases is one of the languages in the offer's 'hlang-send'). >>>>> -----new text---- >>>>> In an answer, 'hlang-send' is the language the answerer will send= if >>>>> using the media for language (which in most cases is one of the >>>>> languages in the offer's 'hlang-recv'), and 'hlang-recv' is the >>>>> language the answerer expects to receive in the media if >>>>> using the media for language (which in most >>>>> cases is one of the languages in the offer's 'hlang-send'). >>>>> ----end of change 2------------------------------- >>>>> >>> >>> I'm OK adding "if using the media for language" to the second clause. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> /Gunnar >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>> Gunnar Hellstr=F6m >>>> Omnitor >>>> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SLIM mailing list >>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>=20 >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/slim >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> Gunnar Hellstr=F6m >>> Omnitor >>> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se >>> +46 708 204 288 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> Gunnar Hellstr=F6m >> Omnitor >> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se >> +46 708 204 288 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing list >> SLIM@ietf.org >>=20 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/= listinfo/slim >> >> > > -- > ----------------------------------------- > Gunnar Hellstr=F6m > Omnitor > gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se > +46 708 204 288 -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- And still I persist in wondering if folly must always be man's nemesis. --Edgar Pangborn