[Slim] Issue 21
Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Tue, 25 October 2016 17:51 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
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 8CD89129874 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rBHDDNJ92yGZ for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x232.google.com (mail-ua0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B47F12989E for <slim@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 20so14439371uak.6 for <slim@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7uufKBqbaICFbxeQmER/hTSipX6IROJWewu6Whs0U1Q=; b=KOFKd5gx6Jnofa/SIotKRVNEXhmk5OBiK9VT/OQwEwUO0epyGoyLntywu1B+S04vMI v3qA2j2n2lxDDE3TPy0CYd3jSqCkXuavS5hkxCqj+NYMd3lNkUXtHK5hsl309a4sAveG UhwudsL9W9X1vkAPIMYv1gCUkhHWNieB1QddZ4RVWT/C6AwhrXbcgDpVoqzyt86IZro5 Fkhi4kgwgs1YNFCJaZx2GNslPv/M2Vm7oTRhp1PBeWRSt1gUZLm2yBxq9PZ0RG2cp30y wzknCDvN5EmF19zse96N4q7D9euDZRDc3Ynk94mAYdLSM/lum0WCvOIcj7n9LMyUb4sC zQzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7uufKBqbaICFbxeQmER/hTSipX6IROJWewu6Whs0U1Q=; b=YLjKjwW+MGWmcICoWRZg/UGdeIYOfeuWtBHDFS+T46QAUSRYhmwfYQl2xF3vpSxvKi EMtF6LBTwIGYMYjPnTCuttkl4X3kZhpl30LecWGSO62SFdjcxg8WaE2xLw5J26TdHAhU SIGNQjke6lR5N1KpxLDyEtXtsTwuyAjGolHxDfqGcXeda2R94wiVHlsaGH40Ow4OggdV IqpYHd+01/w+0xBMt3gbVe9t6CC4sM793EnE4vo6W3Qc6fyOzAAMsBLqUKmX/6pu+zQl 3hKlPG6okMqodiqS5pnmN7LdMS7POHh83nwEJZAiTmWnHXLaIDI3xUQHYgY6UrS69u3h nO5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfvuPEVeCcm+G5p3PZmUVjKMgjoRoDjDo/lM12EXgo1VCEfH5Len9UhMe/4iA2JYRh5VCT8sE/PJFj5jQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.6.33 with SMTP id f30mr15060738uaf.117.1477417895083; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.16.88 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:51:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtBY+uRP8uvorYeGutpD-supiaWmk+=40EPdF=08O3NRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: slim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c04347ad245ee053fb4284e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/BhAaChhrJjK9BtoFu98Q0pRaZxY>
Cc: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>, Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Subject: [Slim] Issue 21
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <slim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/>
List-Post: <mailto:slim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:51:41 -0000
In Issue 21, Gunnar suggests adding support for "text message" modality: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/slim/trac/ticket/21 There is a modality that we have not discussed at all yet. That is the "text message" modality. It is not really interactive, but very often used together with interactive media in a kind of slow pseudo-conversational mode. One implementation is MSRP that is specified by the m=message media. There seems to be some interest to extend our specification to handle that modality as well. Then the text message modality needs to be described and how it is implicitly identified in sdp both in the main media m=message and in a subchannel of a data channel. [BA] Would it be sufficient to add an m=message example to Section 6.5? Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg I am concerned about the potential complexity of allowing language negotiation at the subchannel level. Is this really necessary?
- [Slim] Issue 21 Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Issue 21 Gunnar Hellström