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

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 8:59 PM -0800 1/10/18, Bernard Aboba wrote:

>  Gunnar said:
>
>  ""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.""
>
>  [BA] This came from Ben Campbell, but other ADs 
> with many years of experience in realtime 
> communications have asked questions along 
> similar lines.  So it seems that even 
> experienced readers could use some 
> clarification.
>
>  The reason for the language selection 
> negotiation is to enable the right individuals 
> and resources to be brought into the 
> conversation so as to maximize the changes of 
> successful communications. What happens once 
> the call is brought up is up to the conversants.

[RG] We can text along the lines of the above paragraph, as a clarification.


>  The precise meaning of the negotiation depends 
> in part on the choice of a single language or 
> multiple languages in the Answer.
>
>  If an offer indicates the ability to receive 
> English and French, if an Answer can only 
> contain a single language, then an Answer 
> indicating the ability to send English would 
> establish that the call is expected to be 
> conducted in English. That wouldn't necessarily 
> preclude the use of French, but doesn't provide 
> any indication that it could be supported as an 
> alternative.
>
>  Whereas if the Answer was allowed to include 
> multiple languages and included both English 
> and French, then the Answer would indicate that 
> the conversation could use either language with 
> a preference for English over French.  That 
> does strike me as potentially valuable in some 
> circumstances (e.g. a visitor from Spain with 
> an emergency offering Spanish primary and 
> English secondary and being able to get an 
> answer indicating English with secondary 
> Spanish support, rather than just English).

[RG] Choosing among language and modality will 
often require trade-offs.  A call may indicate 
audio with Spanish (most preferred), Italian 
(second choice), and English.  If the call is 
received by a PSAP that has call takers who 
natively speak English but can bridge in Spanish 
translation, accepting English forces the caller 
to use a less-preferred language while accepting 
Spanish forces the call through translation, 
which makes the communication slower and 
typically more difficult, as well as adding cost 
to the PSAP.  If we add modality choice into the 
mix, it becomes more complex, with trade-offs. 
Further, in the example, if the PSAP indicates 
Spanish in the answer, then it will bridge in 
translation services, while if if indicates 
English, it won't; so if it indicates English, it 
wouldn't also indicate Spanish, even if the 
syntax permitted it.


>  In either case, the conversants can switch languages by mutual agreement.

[RG] Conversants are always free to use any language they like.

--Randall


>
>  On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Gunnar 
> Hellström 
> <<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>  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."
>
>  Gunnar
>
>
>
>  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
>  Omnitor
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>  <tel:%2B46%20708%20204%20288>[phone]
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  SLIM mailing list
>  [e-mail]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
There is hardly anything in the world that some one cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little cheaper.  --John Ruskin (1819-1900)