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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 08 January 2018 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 97A5A120727 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:56:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 BitSt-3ccxf9 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:56:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x232.google.com (mail-yw0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::232]) (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 264C0124207 for <slim@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:56:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x232.google.com with SMTP id n25so3785623ywh.10 for <slim@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 17:56:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RSdbFzLaWVK1brhIGUZCSQxZ/i6cjBGEr23ZOBidzNY=; b=E0WvMAOvlObJi6AKpl5h1Oh/UodhhO+0HxJ249tw677RO/SFVhQHnX3JQhUCAIQPUr 7LASOlODrbbf+htk74WboMI/AqqYrXUPKR7qQ3MFCiydPnG8LNitSwYc60eOh7I7vnGj GLJ+2Spl0h9CA0BfyU3zBZXdc4Lur0MCVhruHCnYBq/BK8Wvbd/BYKCIBz1Z2XfuTp7z Ec7QEGBjfU14NlOaPJfZ8iwoeaTAJSb+3tZ2DoRqM2UhUpnDy4kFE0Ma4ncLR2fE5M0h 3IFcRRl+uoqgMKfDRrbBg/pEqUI7BpoRm/pUozEi5zzoMPVzoxccl+f9FyXtzuxj6BoA Nz6g==
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=RSdbFzLaWVK1brhIGUZCSQxZ/i6cjBGEr23ZOBidzNY=; b=mzLM37UHP7mLNB/6gOROsmdHtocNedCJobN+VeIynU62DuzhCPxht/ySLmGHSrSVjn XHYUWB2Civ6+r6lT7+H2D0XmPz+TYmQIpQ7jPLnmhGiB8U2gDrEjBQTyeP1+p3F+O43v rPIAZQpZtkvM1tUyP64KfnLcJvF4yR4L3xxOUY5O5C+LFmY5DM4eZy4jiPfM7Q0qnryw OnSUewOuHsZq721UMF6tCGnOMII1+7U4uvpef583Z91cXM5SBZat3MxRaQWJrbj7CEJN x0Ap/bC+dtMqJMo9+DykzSZOsWfX9oTqDobkRPrZWminuv395MZk845Z+dZUbK1oBCwO bNvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mL9b6T3px58dawsr0l05FX8RLFATIYe2I/X69cFGjo2WLjAxyeJ EccLqYBLPUboHGvrlqQlvvyxTXpchH1mZibkdN54bQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovxp/Qcye3Oldb9vFXmOGPu7K2Mqpv3iY/a+BYlSYkKM5UTXF0H3z2wJwX/+29hlBBnX2RJu3qLCOg2vQJQRME=
X-Received: by 10.129.1.213 with SMTP id 204mr9609631ywb.5.1515376609250; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 17:56:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.123.132 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:56:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p06240601d6785f2e3ad4@99.111.97.136>
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>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:56:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNX4iTuvuqvvqjAQEgnhkV4f5Z1e8Ac2ebWOf=prAcPKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "slim@ietf.org" <slim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114290ce7ee8ba05623a1cab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/QvCeLlDFew1_sAwC_h9pBcX4IK4>
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 01:56:52 -0000

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)
>