Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 08 January 2018 06:15 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 5543812421A for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:15:17 -0800 (PST)
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 QnZHIxLW3kUA for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22c.google.com (mail-ua0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22c]) (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 62E44120454 for <slim@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id v22so6156131uaj.1 for <slim@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:15:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DYJjkpzqulad64a0nZxp+syzJn7waoQZPSyd38FAlSw=; b=Lo5ST1Qvx0JcX4xXeHmJgu0MvPCz0H+WdYoa0KNxSdvI2Cr926NW2/6RWZKM9+gmk1 OJe2A0JN+g4snA5CArAYsoVnT2+fKekgZafZOSCqIBWNh5mdU1vOl0Dotxzsi+77bjNK BLHc+bCeQGWukjUr1oe66fenGyeciTIZHY6wUc/sCFY6my4sfB0d2xYIb7O2JRdtYynn 29KoQRKaHwxwbL0idC23r92qjdsxlwqHVSjg9D16kjjFGnNvA4eaOXOYa5EfBVwTgRhf yJje5/XmIGkihNQ6fOhtO/rhS8ysk8dxfAtU+jijFRySksrRBQfVrQJM3KAHyUTjkqUo JGwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DYJjkpzqulad64a0nZxp+syzJn7waoQZPSyd38FAlSw=; b=k63faNsNVwwATO3L0Ym4V8SvZ/FeqpWfsEWJq8jA6cONiuboUABJ0k+JFmJxdDpVOK 27P/ZsJ40c/OuaWjoc7kGinrLd6tnEzbuyl7VVvON0yU4MLuRGiaaV3B4qzVQq/1iAY3 PsZq8pkdvr+SA3m/ck58KQbNPnbTWJ/iZBabZCkWPPu7nREeKC/4Y5PCpEljCsrUkVcI O7Db7hW+4ao1xuGFvCYJfv6Ih8yLe2d/Io1XbnJvx2admyT68+KmahiRqiGtAV18YVVN m8mEDTrVLWGzoXomKGTlwCDWKD7CBwa9e22zxxhX9r/1SCftXm9VVCoQfLKkVxSav1jy GWTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdXZ+ChXCqdJxp93BHMPoesFtMBVHJ/CYHBvdCCtHtec/XUiQGX CQiITmuxmbRayqG9mHJWtlkoyUEm/CrDJuZpFNc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouOB4FHb9dNpK4vY1eOsD8jh2r32t4XKYI+yh8gD0V3HFKWqcXBMUyoT8QV2fq3BSZ5FkmIFNi2aZQv+2VQSaU=
X-Received: by 10.176.21.100 with SMTP id p33mr10337598uae.20.1515392114247; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:15:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.54.138 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:14:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNX4iTuvuqvvqjAQEgnhkV4f5Z1e8Ac2ebWOf=prAcPKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <151528917109.10947.12045320996364596931.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABcZeBNQLuaMLa3=gWqaYHL_ynQ1t+HRtsgEebCRORm+OUA0iw@mail.gmail.com> <ECD0168D-9C53-4ACA-BF28-C631DAE38A4D@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPwb5LzCEpaOMbR9CeETHSZiigovkTMhKm_3K=hsWZckA@mail.gmail.com> <p06240601d6785f2e3ad4@99.111.97.136> <CABcZeBNX4iTuvuqvvqjAQEgnhkV4f5Z1e8Ac2ebWOf=prAcPKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:14:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2duhaVqKW3i2FYXb7e7vnrxXhYkamxVZy_FqyTW5KvNK3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "slim@ietf.org" <slim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11428220aa4ed205623db8ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/DgHvCl1OSON3_Lzdw4AJo0C-SRQ>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 06:15:17 -0000

EKR said:

"The rationale provided for this design is that you wish to have the
answerer notify the offerer of which language it would be providing. The
point I am making is that there is at least one important case where this
design does not provide that, which seems like it's relevant to the design
question."

[BA] It seems like a relevant question, particularly for a case where a
call back might occur, so that the roles of Offerer and Answerer are
reversed.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org
> > wrote:
>
>> At 6:36 AM -0800 1/7/18, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>  On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Bernard Aboba <<mailto:
>>> bernard.aboba@gmail.com>bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Jan 6, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Eric Rescorla <<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>
>>> ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  For disabled users, the capabilities may not be symmetric.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  But this is true for ordinary SDP as well. I might be able to receive
>>> H.264 but not send it.
>>>
>>>
>>>  [BA] Thanks. The draft should explain the reasoning. IMHO the argument
>>> goes sonething like this:
>>>
>>>  A pure recv/recv negotiation will not necessarily disclose beforehand
>>> what special services are needed for the call - services (e.g. ASL
>>> interpretation or RTT handling) that could take time to acquire.
>>>
>>>  Since the actual video media sent is not labelled as ASL even if the
>>> answerer has ASL interpreters it can pull in and therefore advertises in
>>> SDP ASL reception capability in video, a recv/recv negotiation doesn't tell
>>> the Answerer that the Offerer will need them, so the Answerer may need to
>>> (frantically) arrange for ASL interpretation after initial receipt of
>>> media. In an emergency, that can chew up valuable time.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Thanks. I think it would be helpful to put this logic in the draft.
>>>
>>
>> I am not clear on what logic we want to add to the draft, or what about
>> the draft this logic is explaining.
>
>
> It would be helpful to explain in the draft why you have deviated from the
> otherwise near-universal SDP negotiation pattern of each side advertising
> what it accepts.
>
>
>
>>  That said, as I noted in my review, it is still possible to get some
>>> media (early media) prior to receiving the answer, so this isn't a complete
>>> solution.
>>>
>>
>> The draft provides a useful mechanism that will be helpful.  As an
>> example of the fact that others find it useful, NENA has included it in
>> it's next-generation emergency call architecture standards.  The draft does
>> not try to solve all problems related to human language in real-time
>> calling.
>
>
> I don't think I claimed it wasn't useful.
>
> The rationale provided for this design is that you wish to have the
> answerer notify the offerer of which language it would be providing. The
> point I am making is that there is at least one important case where this
> design does not provide that, which seems like it's relevant to the design
> question.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Randall Gellens
>> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>> (If you can't hear me, it's because I'm in parentheses)
>>
>
>