Re: [Slim] Human-language Issue 26: Asterisk modifier scope

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

A potential resolution has been proposed to Issue 26: Delete the Asterisk.

Are there any objections to this approach?

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Gunnar Hellström <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Den 2017-07-27 kl. 01:11, skrev Randall Gellens:
>
>> At 3:20 PM -0700 7/26/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>
>>  Randy said:
>>>
>>>  "Therefore, if the asterisk is causing heartburn, we can remove it
>>> without technical impact."
>>>
>>>  [BA] Unless there is some compelling reason to keep it, removing the
>>> "*" might be the simplest way to resolve Issue 26.
>>>
>>
>> There is no compelling reason to keep it, especially since it's purely
>> advisory.
>>
>> I suggest we delete it, revise the draft, and advance it.  In my view,
>> we've spent far too much time on the asterisk, which is a supremely trivial
>> aspect of the draft.
>>
>> --Randy
>>
> +1
> Gunnar
>
>
>>
>>>  On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Randall Gellens <<mailto:
>>> [e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  At 2:35 PM -0700 7/26/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>
>>>   Paul said:
>>>
>>>   "Then what is the expectation regarding whether to accept a call with
>>> no matching language?"
>>>
>>>   I guess it would make the most sense for the callee to accept the call
>>> unless he doesn't want a call without matching language. Then if the callee
>>> does accept the call without the matching language the caller can still
>>> terminate the call once he realizes that is the situation.
>>>
>>>   That seems reasonable to me."
>>>
>>>   [BA] The inability to negotiate a matching language is different from
>>> other SDP negotiation failures such as the inability to negotiate a
>>> matching codec, since even without a matching language, it still may be
>>> useful to successfully negotiate media characteristics and bring up the
>>> call. Therefore it is not clear to me how much value the "*" has in the
>>> current draft, regardless of how it is defined.
>>>
>>>   For example, if the callee has policy that dictates that it will
>>> always accept the call (e.g. a PSAP), the callee might always ignore the
>>> "*".  This might be frustrating to the caller, but the caller may still
>>> choose not to terminate the call.
>>>
>>>   Even if the callee cares deeply about a matching language (e.g. a
>>> voice recognition or chat bot system that is only supports a subset of
>>> languages), the callee might still choose to ignore the "*".
>>>
>>>   For example, the callee might accept the call in order to provide
>>> information to the caller (e.g. a pre-recorded voice or text message
>>> indicating that the caller's languages are not supported).
>>>
>>>
>>>  The draft has said for some time that the asterisk is nothing more than
>>> advisory, and has explicitly said that the callee is free to ignore either
>>> the presence or absence of an asterisk:
>>>
>>>     The called party MAY ignore the indication, e.g., for the emergency
>>>     services use case, regardless of the absence of an asterisk, a PSAP
>>>     will likely not fail the call; some call centers might reject a call
>>>     even if the offer contains an asterisk.
>>>
>>>  Therefore, if the asterisk is causing heartburn, we can remove it
>>> without technical impact.
>>>
>>>  --Randy
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Paul Kyzivat <<mailto:<mailto:
>>> [e-mail]>[e-mail]><mailto:paul.kyzivat@
>>> comcast.net>[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>   On 7/26/17 2:35 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>
>>>   Why don't we just take out of the current draft the asterisk and the
>>> ability to indicate a caller preference to not fail the call? Then Gunnar's
>>> draft(s) are free to use the asterisk.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Then what is the expectation regarding whether to accept a call with
>>> no matching language?
>>>
>>>   I guess it would make the most sense for the callee to accept the call
>>> unless he doesn't want a call without matching language. Then if the callee
>>> does accept the call without the matching language the caller can still
>>> terminate the call once he realizes that is the situation.
>>>
>>>   That seems reasonable to me.
>>>
>>>           Thanks,
>>>           Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   SLIM mailing list
>>>
>>> <mailto:<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>> <<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>https://www.
>>> ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim><https://www.ietf.org/mailman
>>> /listinfo/slim>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   SLIM mailing list
>>>   <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>>>
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>https://www.ietf
>>> .org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  Randall Gellens
>>>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
>>>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>>>  It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.  It's the
>>>  impurities in our air and water that are doing it.
>>>                  --Dan Quayle (then-U.S. Vice-President)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  SLIM mailing list
>>>  [e-mail]
>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Gunnar Hellström
> Omnitor
> [e-mail]
> [phone]
>
>