Re: [Slim] Negotiation issue in draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language

["Randall Gellens" <[e-mail]>]

On 18 Feb 2018, at 11:56, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> The fact that Answers containing “pointless confusion” are allowed 
> means that implementations need to be prepared to handle these edge 
> cases. I see no benefit arising from this.

In that case, let’s move forward with the draft as-is, which does only 
permits one language in the answer.

> Why not require that an Answer place mutually supported language(s) 
> before languages only supported by the Answerer? In what situations 
> would it be necessary to do something else?

I don’t think it’s necessary, because we don’t expect non-offered 
languages to be in an answer except in unusual edge cases.

—Randall

>
>> On Feb 18, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Randall Gellens 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> We don't expect an answer to contain a non-offered language except in 
>> unusual cases. What's in an answer is decided by policies at the 
>> answerer. I don't think we need to get into an exercise of trying to 
>> describe what is permitted vs forbidden for such edge cases. I think 
>> we can assume that the people who create the policies want to enable 
>> communication and not sow pointless confusion.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2018, at 11:27 PM, Bernard Aboba 
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gunnar said:
>>>
>>> "That will happen if you decide to answer with a language that was 
>>> not in the offer. But it is better than answering with no language 
>>> indication and it indicates how you might answer the call."
>>>
>>> [BA] I understand how an Answerer could respond only with 
>>> language(s) not in the Offer.  But if the Answerer can support some 
>>> of the offered languages, what are the restrictions on non-offered 
>>> languages?
>>> Can an Answerer put a non-offered language first in the preference 
>>> list and an offered language in a less preferred position?  Should 
>>> it be able to include a non-offered language at all?  If you offer 
>>> English and
>>> Swedish and receive an Answer with Swahili and Swedish, that could 
>>> result in confusion at best.
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Gunnar Hellström 
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> I agree with Randall. No more normative or descriptive language is 
>>>> needed. There is already a warning against providing language 
>>>> indications that will be hard to match. That will happen if you 
>>>> decide to answer with a language that was not in the offer. But it 
>>>> is better than answering with no language indication and it 
>>>> indicates how you might answer the call.
>>>>
>>>> There is however one small adjustment to do. The sentence about 
>>>> having the languages in preference order in the lists should be 
>>>> included also in the paragraph about the answer in 5.2.  Or it 
>>>> could be pulled out from the paragraph about the offer and put in a 
>>>> common paragraph below both paragraphs about the offer and the 
>>>> answer. And the lists should be in plural in the sentence.
>>>> Here the sentence is attached last in the paragraph about the 
>>>> answer:
>>>> -----------------------------5.2 paragraph about the answer, with 
>>>> new sentence attached 
>>>> last------------------------------------------
>>>>  In an answer, 'hlang-send' is a list of one or more languages the 
>>>> answerer might send if
>>>>    using the media for language (which in most cases contains one 
>>>> or more of the
>>>>    languages in the offer's 'hlang-recv'), and 'hlang-recv' is a 
>>>> list of one or more of the
>>>>    languages the answerer is prepared to receive if using the media 
>>>> for
>>>>    language (which in most cases contains one or more of the 
>>>> languages in the offer's
>>>>    'hlang-send'). The lists of languages are in preference order 
>>>> (first is most
>>>>    preferred).
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> /Gunnar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Den 2018-02-17 kl. 10:52, skrev Randall Gellens:
>>>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting a language in an answer that was not in the offer is an 
>>>>> unusual case (as the text says). I don’t think we need to add 
>>>>> more text (normative or descriptive) about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> —Randall
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Feb 2018, at 19:36, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the proposed changes seem good. One question: is there enough 
>>>>> normative language about adding languages to an Answer that were 
>>>>> not in the Offer? For example, can this only occur if the Answerer 
>>>>> has no languages in common with the Offerer? Or can an Answerer 
>>>>> add any languages(s) they would put into an Offer if roles were 
>>>>> reversed?
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:39 Gunnar Hellström 
>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> I find that the changes to version -23 prepared by Randall and 
>>>>>> provided in this archive mail are good:
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg01289.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That version allows answers to contain languages not contained in 
>>>>>> the offer (that was already allowed and well specified in version 
>>>>>> -23),
>>>>>> and allows multiple languages per media and direction in the 
>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think both of these conditions are good and                     
>>>>>> important for successful use of the draft.
>>>>>> We need to imagine all kinds of feasible applications, e.g. the 
>>>>>> decision on including interpreting resources taken by the offeror 
>>>>>> after receiving the answer. That calls for providing the full and 
>>>>>> true picture about the supported languages in the answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I repeat my comment from 
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg01297.html
>>>>>> "I find the diff you sent to be good, and also version -23 
>>>>>> solving all other issues in a good                       way. So, 
>>>>>> I vote for applying your proposed changes on -23 and hope that 
>>>>>> that can be the final version."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gunnar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Randall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> SLIM mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>>> Gunnar Hellström
>>>>>> Omnitor
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> [phone]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --Randall
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> SLIM mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> Gunnar Hellström
>>>> Omnitor
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [phone]
>>>




--Randall