Re: [Slim] Moving forward on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

"So let's delete Section 5.4 and be done with it.  Neither of the
statements is necessary."

[BA]  I agree that Section 5.4 does not add much value as it stands.

"Non-signed" is not used outside of Section 5.4, so there would not appear
to be a need to define it if Section 5.4 were to be deleted.

However, the term "signed" is used in 7 other places in the document other
than in Section 5.4.

So we may need to find a reference to define that term.

If Gunnar's suggested definition can be confirmed,  this might be as simple
as adding a reference to the IANA language tag repository.

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> My view of issue #43 remains that we do not need to specify a mechanism
> for determining which tags are signed.  In the email discussion of the past
> month or so, I fear we are drifting into adding complexity rather than
> removing it.  I think the way forward is to keep this document as simple as
> possible.  As Bernard notes in his email of 10/23, there is no benefit in
> this case of explicitly saying that certain things are not defined.  Since
> the document does not define them, they are undefined in the document.
>
> At 6:51 PM -0700 10/23/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>>  In other words,it is not clear to me how Section 5.4's discussion of
>> scope improves or clarifies the situation in any way - and there is some
>> possibility that it could cause problems.
>>
>
>
> I believe comment #43 should be closed as no longer applicable, since the
> text against which it was generated has been deleted.  (I've said this
> before, and I believe it remains the case.)
>
> The comment from which #43 derives was made against a version of the
> document that had text explicitly discussing signed versus unsigned tags.
> That text was subsequently deleted.
>
> Here is the comment from which #43 derived:
>
>     5.2.  New 'humintlang-send' and 'humintlang-recv' attributes
>>
>>     Note that while signed language tags are used with a video stream
>>  to
>>     indicate sign language, a spoken language tag for a video stream
>>  in
>>     parallel with an audio stream with the same spoken language tag
>>     indicates a request for a supplemental video stream to see the
>>     speaker.
>>
>>  And there's a similar paragraph in 5.4:
>>
>>     A spoken language tag for a video stream in conjunction with an
>>>
>>  audio
>>
>>>     stream with the same language might indicate a request for
>>>     supplemental video to see the speaker.
>>>
>>
>>  I think this mechanism needs to be described more exactly, and in
>>  particular, it should not depend on the UA understanding which
>>  language tags are spoken language tags.  It seems to me that a
>>  workable rule is that there is an audio stream and a video stream and
>>  they specify exactly the same language tag in their respective
>>  humintlang attributes.  In that case, it is a request for a spoken
>>  language with simultaneous video of the speaker, and those requests
>>  should be considered satisfied only if both streams can be
>>  established.
>>
>
> The offending text that was in 5.2 and 5.4 was deleted.
>
> The only remaining text that even mentions the issue is Section 5.4:
>
>    The behavior when specifying a non-signed language tag for a video
>    media stream, or a signed language tag for an audio or text media
>    stream, is not defined in this document.
>
>    The problem of knowing which language tags are signed and which are
>    not is out of scope of this document.
>
> So, let's delete Section 5.4 and be done with it.  Neither of the
> statements is necessary.
>
> --
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
> Make it right before you make it faster.
>