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

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Mon, 08 January 2018 01:22 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 310FD124BAC for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:22:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <jGIX0usDchAQ>
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 jGIX0usDchAQ for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4EA1205D3 for <slim@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:23:09 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240601d6785f2e3ad4@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPwb5LzCEpaOMbR9CeETHSZiigovkTMhKm_3K=hsWZckA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <151528917109.10947.12045320996364596931.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CO2PR10MB0101A52C512BACCBEE0CF75593120@CO2PR10MB0101.namprd10.prod.ou tlook.com> <CABcZeBNQLuaMLa3=gWqaYHL_ynQ1t+HRtsgEebCRORm+OUA0iw@mail.gmail.com> <ECD0168D-9C53-4ACA-BF28-C631DAE38A4D@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPwb5LzCEpaOMbR9CeETHSZiigovkTMhKm_3K=hsWZckA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:22:34 -0800
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "slim@ietf.org" <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/drJsKI-aLgD6wtrJySLpPlaiJAI>
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 01:22:41 -0000

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.

>  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.

-- 
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)