Re: [Slim] Multi-lines and offer/answer questions on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language

Paul Kyzivat <> Tue, 13 June 2017 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8001318E9 for <>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZqMjn7ITOeK for <>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D93131889 for <>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074411-f47ff70000007ac9-b7-59400a8bbd20
Received: from (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU []) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id C5.1A.31433.B8A00495; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:53:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id v5DFrkOW002840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:53:47 -0400
References: <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:53:46 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrHIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqNvL5RBpMO2UicXMD51sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKOLNhJnPBev6KL1ckGxifc3cxcnJICJhItCyeyd7FyMUhJLCD SWLpnmVsEM5LJon1vx+ygFQJC2RJ3Pj6nRXEFhEQlPjeM4MJxBYSsJV4/3EVO4jNJqAlMefQ f7B6XgF7ifePZrOB2CwCqhIrO9aA2aICaRJ/Lt1ghqgRlDg58wlYPaeAncSV1mawGmagmXfm 7maGsMUlbj2ZzwRhy0s0b53NPIGRfxaS9llIWmYhaZmFpGUBI8sqRrnEnNJc3dzEzJzi1GTd 4uTEvLzUIl1TvdzMEr3UlNJNjJCgFNzBOOOk3CFGAQ5GJR7eB+/tI4VYE8uKK3MPMUpyMCmJ 8m65YhMpxJeUn1KZkVicEV9UmpNafIhRgoNZSYTXit0hUog3JbGyKrUoHyYlzcGiJM7Lt0Td T0ggPbEkNTs1tSC1CCYrw8GhJMHbwwnUKFiUmp5akZaZU4KQZuLgBBnOAzT8PgvI8OKCxNzi zHSI/ClGXY5fM7d+YRJiycvPS5US573GAVQkAFKUUZoHNweWTF4xigO9Jcx7BGQdDzARwU16 BbSECWjJdZDveItLEhFSUg2Mhp+l7ixatob97RRX4ZNOBxvfFlw8JCFxKn3316KqNNvJ6hyn bYO2TFXU78/LKkne/NPKzfTUmoBpH11zflsq6uW+4Xt0Psvlyv7IT9OUcuLXKb1YPHPS/ugv bDrJvRXSHZJrxdm5uUOUG2q+n9a8VJDL/ejXzoU7cwIbj+e21Ac5/HxQ9Oq5EktxRqKhFnNR cSIAHNlKKAEDAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Multi-lines and offer/answer questions on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language
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: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:04:15 -0000

On 6/13/17 1:51 AM, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
> A couple of questions on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language.
> 1. How would inclusion of more than one hlang attribute of the same kind 
> in a media description be handled.
> a) should it be seen as an addition, so the language tags are collected 
> and any asterisk governs.
> b) should it replace earlier attributes of same kind in same media 
> description
> c) should it be "illegal"
> I have a slight preference for a). Some applications might find it 
> easier to insert a number of complete attributes.

I think I also slightly prefer (a).

I would also be ok with (c). As things stand I think any plausible usage 
will be able to fit all on one line and still have something that still 
works ok in published examples where line length can be limited. But if 
later extended with parameters there then might be an advantage to 
breaking things out for examples.

> 2. How would inclusion of hlang attributes in an answer be handled if no 
> one was included in the offer.
> This assumes that the offering party supports hlang attributes bu did 
> not bother to add any.
> a) The offering party would act on the attributes in the answer as 
> usual. (A re-Invite would be needed to get full negotiation in place if 
> that was desired.)
> b) The offering party would ignore it.
> c) It would be seen as "illegal"
> I think a) is the natural choice and is also how the current draft can 
> be interpreted. In 5.2, there is a paragraph starting "In an answer..", 
> not exactly requiring that attributes were included in an offer (but 
> anyway talking about what was in the offer)

I agree that (a) is fine. As long as it is considered a legal answer 
then how it is used is really out of scope anyway.


> I suggest that some wording is included for clarification of these cases.
> /Gunnar