Re: [Slim] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-ietf-slim-00-06: (with BLOCK)

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

> On 04/10/15 22:19, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> How about something like this:
>>> 
>>> "It is not unlikely that once there is a method for using language
>>> as planned here, some implementations may similarly handle other
>>> personal attributes. The wg will analyse the security and privacy
>>> issues arising from having UAs emit language or other similar
>>> attributes and then handle language attributes accordingly."
>> 
>> How does this work, appended to the charter (at the end)?:

[BA] Support for language negotiation in SDP is not new. 

a=lang was first defined in RFC 2327, published in April 1998. 

Since then, this has been included in RFC 4566, published in July 2006, and will be included again in RFC 4566bis which is underway.

RFC 1766, published in July 1995, defines language tags based on ISO 639/3166. 

Given that language negotiation in SDP is 17+ years old, charter language that suggests it is a new problem, or ignores all the security considerations that have already been written (and all prior IESG reviews) strains credulity.