Re: [Slim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-07.txt

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 8:26 AM +0100 3/1/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote:

>  Hi Randall,
>
>  Den 2017-03-01 kl. 02:08, skrev Randall Gellens:
>
>>  Hi Gunnar,
>>
>>  I'm starting a new message to cut out the huge amount of quoting.
>>
>>  Your proposal is that text be added that 
>> advises the calling client to place an 
>> asterisk on the least-preferred 
>> language/media, and advises the answering 
>> client to indicate to the answering human 
>> which language/media is not the least 
>> preferred (did not have an asterisk in the 
>> offer), is that accurate?
>>
>  Yes, with slight rewording to:
>  "text that advises the offering client to place 
> an asterisk on the least-preferred 
> language/media indications, and advises the 
> answering client to indicate to the answering 
> human which language/media are not the least 
> preferred (did not have an asterisk in the 
> offer)"
>
>  The inclusion of the "indications" is just to 
> assure that it is clear that it does not need 
> to be just one indication that gets the 
> asterisk .
>  The last part sounds awkward, but matches 
> technically what the lack of an asterisk means. 
> I inherited the inverted logic for the asterisk 
> from its already defined non-denial meaning.
>  If you are considering wording for the draft, I 
> suggest that you straighten the logic to say 
> "which language/media are most preferred (did 
> not have an asterisk in the offer)"
>
>  It does also not need to be an "answering 
> human" that gets this indication and makes use 
> of it for guidance on how to answer the call. 
> It can just as well be e.g. a multi-modal 
> answering machine or some other application 
> interacting with human language. I am not sure 
> if "answering party" is more appropriate and 
> can be considered including such automata.

Hi Gunnar,

Thanks for clarifying, I think I understand your 
proposal in detail now.  After thinking it over, 
I still think this would be better done in a new 
draft, because (a) it is advice on a way of using 
the mechanism to convey additional information; 
(b) it would be good for the group to discuss the 
proposal and work through various cases (e.g., 
what if the offering client is not going to 
include an asterisk, what if there is more than 
one most-preferred language); and (c) it would be 
good for the group to decide if this meets your 
need.

A new draft, especially one that will be either 
Informational or BCP, can be done fairly quickly. 
It could be quite short, perhaps only a page or 
two of real text plus the boilerplate text.  I am 
happy to help with it.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.