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

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


Den 2017-03-07 kl. 15:18, skrev Natasha Rooney:
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve been catching up on the discussions after a long business trip - 
> so many apologies for the late response.
>
> The idea of working on Gunnar’s suggestions within a separate draft 
> seems like a good idea; it doesn’t delay the current draft’s progress 
> nor does it ignore a good proposal. It seems people are ok with this 
> decision, so let’s do that.
>
> Gunnar - if you want to make a start on this that would be fab; 
> Randall has offered support for this so we can rely on him for text 
> and review.
Well, I am trying to convince you that we should do the opposite. To 
include a lightweight solution on the need for preference indication 
between modalities.
Because without it the draft is unbalanced and does not meet its own 
declared requirements and is discriminating against persons with 
disabilities. And the simple solution also motivates why we have the 
asterisk as a parameter on media level, while with the current 
functional description it should rather be defined as an attribute on 
session level.

But Bernard has during LC requested a solution also on the indication of 
a need for captions, and that is not as easily done as an extension on 
the current hlang coding. If you read my summary of the LC comments and 
resolutions on March 4, you may have seen in item n) by the end three 
different principles for solution of both the preference between 
modalities and the simultaneity indication needed for captions.  One of 
the three solution principles is based on that we accept Dale's proposal 
to change coding of the attribute to be similar to the Accept-Language 
syntax.  That is probably the cleanest solution. So even if we let the 
current draft go to publication without these two functionalities, we 
need to select a principle for the extensions and make sure that the 
draft is in line with the extensions.

We should have a discussion on the three solution principles and decide 
which one to use.

Regards
/Gunnar



>
> Natasha
>
> Natasha Rooney | Internet Engineering Director | Internet and Web Team 
> | Technology | GSMA | [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> | +44 
> (0) 7730 219 765 | @thisNatasha | Skype: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>> On 2 Mar 2017, at 02:21, Randall Gellens <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gunnar,
>>
>> At 11:06 PM +0100 3/1/17, 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.
>>
>> I see your point, however, my view is that this is best covered in a 
>> separate draft.  As I said above, the draft can be completed very 
>> quickly if it is Informational (or even BCP), clear and not 
>> controversial.  I am happy to help.
>>
>> -- 
>> Randall Gellens
>> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>>   The highlight of the annual Computer Bowl occurred when Bill Gates,
>> who was a judge, posed the following question to the contestants:
>>   "What contest, held via Usenet, is dedicated to examples of weird,
>> obscure, bizarre, and really bad programming?"
>>   After a moment of silence, Jean-Louis Gassee (ex-honcho at Apple)
>> hit his buzzer and answered "Windows."
>>                                         --Recounted by Adam C. Engst
>
> This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only 
> and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must 
> take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to 
> anyone; please reply to this email or call [phone] and 
> highlight the error.
>

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[e-mail]
[phone]