[Slim] Text stating that negotiation isn't restrictive

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Thu, 11 January 2018 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
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 23FB91273B1 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:30:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <XAxtEKS6GkRR>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XAxtEKS6GkRR for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E281270A0 for <slim@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:30:44 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240603d67d6aa5ec31@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240601d67d2f9e1693@[99.111.97.136]>
References: <151555808122.21584.8379796998643581181.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <p06240602d67be148b9db@99.111.97.136> <2c49d430-3fb1-381f-d236-4bc5a6a38c27@omnitor.se> <CAOW+2dtDBKR5q_LO9=kTpgKQJR=P_hy4yzQC=iy8q_WgtH6hyw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240601d67d2f9e1693@[99.111.97.136]>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:30:05 -0800
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Cc: slim@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/dfbtSQ7rNC0X_gUPU3xl28B4Vm0>
Subject: [Slim] Text stating that negotiation isn't restrictive
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: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:30:15 -0000

Of the two remaining open questions, one is if we need to add text to 
explicitly say that negotiation doesn't restrict what people do on a 
call.  I do not believe we need to add such text.  However, if we 
were to add text, here is a proposal to add to the Introduction:

     Language negotiation is intended to better enable interactive
     communications (e.g., by allowing needed individuals or resources
     to be part of a call); it does not attempt to describe the full
     complexity of human conversation nor restrict what conversants do
     during a call.

As I said in the email thread, I do not see any harm in leaving the 
draft as-is, but I also won't strongly object to adding the above.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Computers ... are not designed, as we are, for ambiguity.  --Thomas