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

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

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.

Thanks,
Gunnar