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

[Arnoud van Wijk <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I have been reading the draft and trying to follow the discussions so far.

Randall, this is a very interesting draft and very useful to indicate 
the different language preferences in a call.

The first thing that I noticed is that I would not be able to select my 
language preference to e.g. send spoken English and if not possible then 
to send English in RTT. At the same time I do have the preference to 
receive RTT in English and if not possible then to receive the video so 
I can (try to )lipread the other person.

So, the ability to set a language preference between different 
modalities instead of only language preferences within one modality is 
quite essential for many users who have a limited or no ability to use a 
certain modality.

For example a user prefers to receive ASL but if that is not possible 
then receive RTT is fine. Sending ASL and if not possible send RTT. But 
skip audio.

So, how can we indicate the language preferences in sending and 
receiving modalities/different media instead of  only the selection of 
language within one modality/media?

I read Gunnar's proposal to use the asterisk  to indicate the least 
preferred media. I think it is an excellent idea since it won't require 
any changes except the proposed rewording

>  "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)" 
and then as mentioned by Gunnar a BCP could expand on all the use cases. 
And how to answer such offers as a relay center, emergency center or any 
other system that is able to invoke a relay operator in case the 
preferred language modality/media is not possible.

That are my observations and insights so far.

cheers


Arnoud



On 01/03/2017 14:06, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
> Den 2017-03-01 kl. 18:47, skrev Randall Gellens:
>> 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.
> Randall,
> Good that you understand it now.
> I realize that this kind of added rules for an already existing 
> parameter could be specified in an additional draft. Especially since 
> it has no impact on the current meaning of the asterisk.
> I still think it is best to add the few words needed now. The 
> preference indication is so severely unbalanced without it, in that 
> only preference between languages in the same modality can be 
> specified. I am afraid that it can be seen as a discrimination against 
> those who would need to specify preference between different 
> modalities in order to tget equal opportunities to get smoothly 
> performed calls through, but cannot.
>
> You are right that there are situations that will not be explained if 
> we accept my little extra sentence or something similar.
> That is true also for the currently specified indications. We have 
> said that we nearly only specify the indications and not how the 
> negotiation shall be performed. It can be a topic for a BCP to advice 
> on how the negotiation could be performed both with the currently 
> specified language and in-media preferences and with the additional 
> preference between media. We could discuss e.g. the case when two same 
> spoken languages are specified but with the opposite preference order 
> by the offeror and answering party. A decision must be taken, because 
> the protocol says that oly one language per media and direction may be 
> indicated in the answer, and also that the answering instance need to 
> become aware of which language it shall produce.
> I do not say that we need to resolve this case. It can be discussed in 
> a BCP, and indicated that additional policy may be applied for solving 
> that kind of undefined cases.
>
> Similarily, there will be situations with the additional use of the 
> asterisk that will be good to provide extra information for in a BCP. 
> The preference indication is very rough, with only two levels. So 
> there wil of course be situations when the users will wonder how to 
> set their profile, and cases when the negotiation will be hard to 
> assign a well motivated result. But we have said that we want to have 
> the specification on this rough level.
>
> The two cases that you bring up can have this treatment:
>
> 1. If the calling user want to get the call denied if no languages 
> match, then the user must make a decision if that preference is more 
> important to specify than the preference between modalities. In order 
> to keep complexity low, I do not think that we should specify how to 
> code both preferences.
>
> 2. If there are more than one most-preferred language. I understand 
> this as for example a user is equally happy to use French sign 
> language as spoken French, and can also, but on lower preference level 
> write French text. That would be indicated by an asterisk on the 
> French text, and the answering party having all these three 
> capabilities may omit the French text from the answer but keep the 
> others. Then the answering user select one of the spoken French and 
> French Sign Language for its start of the call, knowing that the 
> caller will be approximately equally happy with the call in both these 
> cases.   Was that the case you thought about for the second case?
>
> I understand that you wanted to check more than these two cases and 
> discuss them with the WG, so the above is just a start. We can do more 
> cases if you want, but I do not think we need any lengthy discussion 
> that would delay the current draft.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Tanks,
>
> Gunnar
>