Re: [Slim] Human-language Issue 26: Asterisk modifier scope

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

I see now that I made a mistake in formulating alternative 3 - see below.


Den 2017-07-25 kl. 19:42, skrev Paul Kyzivat:
> On 7/25/17 1:09 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> Paul Kyzivat said:
>>
>> "(And I don't find #4 to be a reasonable choice.)"
>>
>> [BA] Is there another choice/solution that you would prefer?
>
> Since this is really a session-level feature I would prefer to see it 
> controlled by a session-level attribute.
<GH> That would mean alternative 2. I also find that most appropriate.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 7/22/17 6:06 PM, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
>>
>>         It seems not possible to invent any suitable interpretation on a
>>         true media level of the asterisk controlling call failure, so
>>         the comment from the review that it seems to be a session level
>>         parameter placed on a media level attribute. I think that is not
>>         good IETF quality, and should be corrected. I see four possible
>>         solutions:
>>
>>         1. Drop the idea to control if the call shall be denied.
>>
>>         2. Make a separate session level attribute for this purpose.
>>         e.g. a=hlang-disposition:keep / fail
>>
>>         3. Use the asterisk also for a session level purpose already in
>>         the current draft.
<GH> Mistake, it should read:
3. "Use the asterisk also for a media level purpose already in the 
current draft."
     This alternative of course aims at my earlier efforts to specify 
also relative modality preference with the asterisk.
    But it has problems. 1) It is not logically clean to merge two 
meanings of the asterisk, even if it looks possible. 2) In order to not 
create interop problems, this meaning should be specified in the same 
draft, and not be done as a separate addition. The wg has opposed to do so.
The decision would be easier to take if we got some comments on the 
draft about using sdp grouping for modality preference and simultaneous 
modality indication. draft-hellstrom-slim-modality-grouping


>>
>>         4. Accept that we propose a draft that does not fulfill good
>>         IETF quality standards and keep the wording as is.
>>
>>
>>     +1
>>
>>     (And I don't find #4 to be a reasonable choice.)
>>
>>              Thanks,
>>              Paul
<GH>  #2 seems to be the right way.
Gunnar
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     SLIM mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLIM mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

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