Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22: (with COMMENT)

Gunnar Hellström <> Wed, 10 January 2018 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E576F127599 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:36:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZVxMZQolDoL for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:36:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B69A6127369 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:36:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: 6ecf5f9c-f656-11e7-96e5-005056917f90
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 6ecf5f9c-f656-11e7-96e5-005056917f90; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:34:37 +0100 (CET)
To: Randall Gellens <>, Ben Campbell <>, The IESG <>
References: <> <p06240602d67be148b9db@[]>
From: Gunnar Hellström <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:35:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <p06240602d67be148b9db@[]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:36:14 -0000

I saw a question somewhere but lost track of who asked it.

It was about if the users are bound to use only the negotiated 
language(s) in the session.

I think a line about that should be inserted, probably best close to the 
end of the introduction.

Proposed text:
"The result of the negotiation is intended to guide the selection of 
language(s) to use initially and during the session. However, nothing 
prevents the users from varying the use of languages and media by mutual 
agreement after the initial exchange during the call."


Den 2018-01-10 kl. 17:12, skrev Randall Gellens:
> At 8:21 PM -0800 1/9/18, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>  I'm balloting "yes" because I think this is important work, but I 
>> have some
>>  comments:
>>  Substantive Comments:
>>  - General: It seems to be that this is as much about human behavior 
>> as it is
>>  capabilities negotiating. Example case: I make a video call and 
>> express that I
>>  would like to receive Klingon. (Is there a tag for that ? :-) The 
>> callee can
>>  speak Klingon and Esperanto, so we agree on Klingon. What keeps the 
>> callee from
>>  speaking Esparanto instead?
> There is a language tag for Klingon: "tlh".
> The draft is not trying to even capture the full complexity of human 
> language interaction, much less enforce it.  The draft provides a 
> fairly simple mechanism to make it more likely that successful 
> communication can occur, by identifying language needs (which can 
> allow endpoints to take potentially required additional steps, such as 
> bridging in translation or relay services, or having a call handled by 
> someone who known the language(s) or can use the needed media).
>>  I realize we can't force people to stick to the negotiated 
>> languages--but
>>  should we expect that users should at least be given some sort of UI 
>> indication
>>  about the negotiated language(s)? It seems like a paragraph or two 
>> on that
>>  subject is warranted, even if it just to say it's out of scope.
> I will add to the Introduction the following text:
>    This document does not address user interface (UI) issues, such as if
>    or how a UE client informs a user about the result of language and
>    media negotiation.
>>  -1, paragraph 6:  (related to Ekr's comments) Does the selection of 
>> a single
>>  tag in an answer imply  an assumption only one language will be 
>> used? There are
>>  communities where people tend to mix 2 or more languages freely and 
>> fluidly. Is
>>  that sort of thing out of scope?
> Earlier versions of the draft had more explicit text that the draft 
> did not attempt to capture the full range of human language issues, 
> including the common practice among multilingual people of mixing 
> languages.
> The draft currently says:
>    (Negotiating multiple simultaneous languages within a media stream is
>    out of scope of this document.)
> There was text in a version of the draft as of February 2013 that said:
>    (While it is true that a conversation among multilingual people often
>    involves multiple languages, it does not seem useful enough as a
>    general facility to warrant complicating the desired semantics of the
>    SDP attribute to allow negotiation of multiple simultaneous languages
>    within an interactive media stream.)
> I do not recall the reasons why the text was simplified, removing 
> mention of multilingual people, and would have to search through 
> minutes of the various WG sessions and email in 2013 where the draft 
> was discussed.  I suspect there was desire to have the draft merely 
> state what it does and doesn't do, and not get into a lot of value 
> judgment discussion.
>>  - 5.1, paragraph 2:  Can you elaborate on the motivation to have a 
>> separate
>>  hlang-send and hlang-recv parameter vs having a single language 
>> parameter and
>>  instead setting the stream to send or receive only, especially in 
>> light of the
>>  recommendation to set both directions the same for bi-directional 
>> language
>>  selection? I don't mean to dispute that approach; I just think a bit 
>> more
>>  explanation of the design choice would be helpful to the reader.  I 
>> can imagine
>>  some use cases, for example a speech-impaired person who does not 
>> plan to speak
>>  on a video call may still wish to send video to show facial 
>> expressions, etc.
>>  (I just re-read the discussion resulting from Ekr's comments, and 
>> recognize
>>  that this overlaps heavily with that.)
> As you suggest, a media might be desired in both directions even 
> though only one direction is primarily intended for interactive 
> communication.  The draft currently says:
>    When a media is intended for interactive communication
>    using a language in one direction only (e.g., a user with difficulty
>    speaking but able to hear who indicates a desire to send using text
>    and receive using audio), either hlang-send or hlang-recv MAY be
>    omitted.  When a media is not primarily intended for language (for
>    example, a video or audio stream intended for background only) both
>    SHOULD be omitted.  Otherwise, both SHOULD have the same value.  Note
>    that specifying different languages for each direction (as opposed to
>    the same or essentially the same language in different modalities)
>    can make it difficult to complete the call (e.g., specifying a desire
>    to send audio in Hungarian and receive audio in Portuguese).
> I will add "Note that the media can still be useful in both 
> directions."  The text thus becomes:
>    When a media is intended for interactive communication
>    using a language in one direction only (e.g., a user with difficulty
>    speaking but able to hear who indicates a desire to send using text
>    and receive using audio), either hlang-send or hlang-recv MAY be
>    omitted.  Note that the media can still be useful in both directions.
>    When a media is not primarily intended for language (for example, a
>    video or audio stream intended for background only) both SHOULD be
>    omitted.
>>  -5.1, paragraph 3: "... which in most cases is one of the
>>     languages in the offer's..."
>>  Are there cases where it might not?
> Yes, it could happen.  For example, if an emergency call comes into a 
> PSAP and requests languages that the PSAP is unable to support, the 
> PSAP will likely want the call to proceed anyway. It's also possible 
> that the callee might support a language that has some degree of 
> mutual comprehensibility to those requested by the caller.  An example 
> might be some Scandinavian languages where the caller does not include 
> a language that is similar enough to have some comprehension but not 
> be fluent enough to include in the UE configuration.
>>  -5.1, last paragraph: "This is not a problem."
>>  Can you elaborate? That sort of statement usually takes the form 
>> "This is not a
>>  problem, because..."
> The caller and callee are free to use any of the established media 
> streams.  If a caller requests audio, video (with a sign language), 
> and text, and all three are established, the caller might ignore the 
> text or audio stream and use only the video stream.
>>  -5.2, last paragraph: Is there a reason to give such weak guidance 
>> on how to
>>  indicate the call is rejected?  (Along those lines, are non-SIP uses 
>> of SDP in
>>  scope?)
> No one made a case for why mandating a particular rejection code was 
> necessary, especially since the draft does not offer any suggestion as 
> to if a call should proceed or fail when there aren't mutually 
> supported languages.
>>  Editorial Comments and Nits:
>>  -5.1, paragraph 4: The first MUST seems like a statement of fact.
> You mean this sentence:
>    In an offer, each value MUST be a list of one or more language tags
>    per BCP 47 [RFC5646], separated by white space.
> The MUST makes sure that the values are IANA-registered language tags.

Gunnar Hellström
+46 708 204 288