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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

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.

	Thanks,
	Paul

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