Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06.txt> (Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time Communications) to Proposed Standard
Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Mon, 13 February 2017 10:35 UTC
Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
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 047701293DF for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:35:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Eqg9BP-yCfCM for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:35:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bin-vsp-out-01.atm.binero.net (bin-mail-out-06.binero.net [195.74.38.229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2894A1295CB for <slim@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:34:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: 09cc9353-f1d8-11e6-a131-005056917a89
Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Received: from [192.168.2.136] (unknown [83.209.158.27]) by bin-vsp-out-01.atm.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:34:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
References: <148639487217.18865.13611191877947090796.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: "slim@ietf.org" <slim@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <21d6ddb3-ebbd-833e-f5ff-800bdf144d2d@omnitor.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:34:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <148639487217.18865.13611191877947090796.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------14511186B3059DA30155E67B"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/j7HBp87AVs7fst_f9H_vjmNoF84>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06.txt> (Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time Communications) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 13 Feb 2017 10:35:08 -0000
I have reviewed draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06.txt and have composed a proposed edited version adjusted for my comments below, and additionally for some minor editorial issues. The attached version is a rough edit of the txt file version. Accepted edits need to be re-done in the XML version. Please use a diff to find all edit proposals. The main ones are listed below with reference to sections in the files. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Inexact wording about the syntax of the new attributes. Sections 5 and 5.2, . The text sometimes indicate that the value of the attributes is a language tag, and sometimes a language tag with an optionally appended asterisk. The syntax shown in section 5.2 is also not in alignment with the syntax shown in section 6. In 5.2 it is shown without the optional asterisk, and in 6 with the optional asterisk. Proposed action: Make the attribute syntax equal in sections 5.2 and 6. Make sure that when "Language-Tag" is mentioned, it is only about the language tag part of the attribute value, and when the attribute value is mentioned, it is about the complete value, including the optional modifier. Changes: Last line in 5. Change "be" to "contain" Add [ asterisk ] last in both syntax lines in 5.2. Multiple small changes in section 5.2. to adjust wording to be more exact. - See attached draft. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Reminiscense of earlier syntax. In a couple of places, there is wording left over from a recently abandoned syntax for the attributes. In an earlier version, each attribute value could contain multiple language-tags. Now, there is just one language-tag in each attribute value. Changes: At end of page 6: Old: "The values constitute a list of languages in preference order" New: "The values from multiple attributes constitute a list of languages in preference order per direction" At end of Section 5.3, the comparison with Accept-Language syntax is not valid anymore. Delete: "(similar to SIP Accept-Language syntax)" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Inexact wording about O/A procedure in section 5.2 The answers are called "accepted language", but within paranthesis it is mentioned that it is only in most cases that it is selected from the offer. More suitable is then to just call it just "language": Old: " In an answer, 'humintlang-send' is the accepted language the answerer will send (which in most cases is one of the languages in the offer's 'humintlang-recv'), and 'humintlang-recv' is the accepted language the answerer expects to receive (which in most cases is one of the languages in the offer's 'humintlang-send')." New: "In an answer, 'humintlang-send' indicates the language the answerer will send (which in most cases is one of the languages in the offer's 'humintlang-recv'), and 'humintlang-recv' indicates the language the answerer expects to receive (which in most cases is one of the languages in the offer's 'humintlang-send')." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Inexact note at end of section 5.2. The note at end of 5.2 has a short discussion about accepted media as if it should possibly be influenced by the matching languages. This discussion is not really valid. A media section is a request to set up a media stream, unrelated to the language indications. The devices should deny media because they are not needed for language communication. This is made more clear in an extended note. Old: "Note that media and language negotiation might result in more media streams being accepted than are needed by the users (e.g., if more preferred and less preferred combinations of media and language are all accepted)." New: "Note that media and language negotiation might result in more media streams being accepted than are needed by the users for language exchange (e.g., if more preferred and less preferred combinations of media and language are all accepted). This is normal and accepted, because the humintlang attribute is not intended to restrict media streams to be used only for language exchange." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Make use of the asterisk modifier on media level with session scope also for media level purposes The asterisk modifier optionally appended on attribute values has in the original -06 draft only a session effect. It is specified to indicate if the call should be rejected or not if languages do not match. It can be appended to any humintlang attribute in the whole SDP without any change in effect. This independancy of placement indicates that it is wrongly placed. With the current definition, it should be a single separate session level attribute. Instead of specifying a separate session level attribute, it is proposed that the asterisk gets an expanded definition, so that its placement conveys meaning of value for the successful language negotiation. It has been discussed in the SLIM WG that the specification lacks two functions, required by the specifications by other bodies who are waiting for the results of SLIM real-time work. (e.g. 3GPP TS 22.228 and ETSI TR 103 201). 3GPP TS 22.228 requires "The system should be able to negotiate the user's desired language(s) and modalities, per media stream and/or session, in order of preference." Thus negotiation with preference indication within the session is required, not only within each media. ETSI TR 103 201 says "the Total Conversation user should be able to indicate the preferred method of communication for each direction of the session, so that the call-taker can be selected appropriately or an appropriate assisting service be invoked. " Saying "preferred" means that it should also be possible to indicate less preferred alternatives. The most urgent of these functions can be fulfilled in a simple but sufficient way by extending the meaning of the asterisk. That is the possibility to indicate a difference in preference between languages in different modalities. There is an apparent risk that many calls will start and continue in an inconvenient modaity if this differentiation is not introduced. See the proposed replaced section 5.3 and extended examples in section 5.5. Earlier discussions on this topic has not resulted in a sufficiently simple mechanism. The extended use of the asterisk proposed here is intended to introduce the required simplification, and yet meet the most urgent needs. Changes: In 5.2 Old: "In an offer, each language tag value MAY have an asterisk appended as the last character (after the language tag). The asterisk indicates a request by the caller to not fail the call if there is no language in common." New: "In an offer or answer, each attribute value MAY have a modifier appended as the last character (after the Language-Tag). This specification defines one value for the modifier; an asterisk ("*"). The asterisk included in a humintlang attribute value in the SDP indicates a lower preference for the indicated language and a request by the caller to not reject the call if there is no language in common." In 5.3. The whole section replaced by: " 5.3. Preferences within the session It is of high importance for a smooth start of a call that the answering party is answering the call using the best matching language(s) and modality(ies) suitable for the continuation of the call. Switching language and modality during the call by agreement between the participants is often time consuming. Without support of detailed language and modality negotiation the particiants may have a tendency to continue the call in the initial language and modality even if a more convenient common language and modality combination is available. In order to support the decision on which of the available language(s) and modality(ies) to use initially in the call, a simple two-level preference indicator is specified here for inclusion as a modifier in the humintlang attribute values. The preference indicator is also used as an indicator that the call SHOULD be established even if no language match is found. The asterisk ("*") is used as a preference indicator within the session. Low relative preference for a language and modality to be used in the session SHOULD be indicated by appending an asterisk after the language tag in the attribute value. This indication from the offering party SHOULD be interpreted by the answering party as a request to use a higher preferred language and modality when answering the call if available, but otherwise accept a lower preferred language and modality combination if that is available. When satisfying languages and modalities in the offer is regarded to be so important that the whole call SHOULD be rejected if no match can be provided in the session in one or both directions, then the asterisk shall not be appended on any indicated language in the whole session description. For the case when no specific preference is desired, but the offering party does not want the call to be rejected, all indicated languages and modalities SHOULD have an asterisk appended. In an answer, the language(s) and modality(ies) that the answering party will use initially in the answer SHOULD be indicated without an appended asterisk. Any language and modality available for later use in the session MAY be indicated by a language tag with an appended asterisk. In the case when more than two parties participate in the call, the language and modality indications provided to each party SHOULD be the sum of the indications from the other parties. The use of the preference indicator as specified above does not provide for distinguishing between the case when two or more language/modality combinations in the same direction are desired for use simultaneously versus the case when two or more language/modality combinations for the same directions are provided as selectable alternatives without specific preference differentiation. The context or other specifications may introduce the possibility to distinguish between these cases. When a party in a call has no indications that two or more language/modality combinations for each direction are desired simultaeously in the call, the party SHOULD assume that satisfying one is sufficient. Other specifications may add other attribute value modifiers than the asterisk. If an unknown modifier is detected, the modifier SHALL be ignored." In section 6. Reference to semantics in the attribute registrations are expanded from 5.2 to 5.2-5.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. The cases in the "Silly states" section 5.4 are not all silly. Section 5.4 contains some proposed interpretations of unusual language indications. They are not silly, but just unusual. Therefore change the name of the section to "5.4 Unusual indications" The section contains too weak specification about what to do with the unusual indications. That may cause a risk that a user who gets accustomed to one behavior in contact with certain UAs, suddeenly gets another behavior in contact with another UA. Change: Old: "An offer MUST NOT be created where the language does not make sense for the media type. If such an offer is received, the receiver MAY reject the media, ignore the language specified, or attempt to interpret the intent (e.g., if American Sign Language is specified for an audio media stream, this might be interpreted as a desire to use spoken English)." To: "An offer MUST NOT be created where the language does not make sense for the media type. If such an offer is received, the receiver SHOULD ignore the language specified." Also add the following at the end of 5.4 to explain the choice of interpretation of a spoken/written language tag in a video medium to be a request to see the speaker rather than having text captions overlayed on video. "There is no difference between language tags for spoken and written languages. The spoken or written language tag indicated for a video stream could therefore be interpreted as a capability or request to use text captions overlayed on the video stream. The interpretation according to this specification SHALL however be to have a view of the speaker." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Examples section 5.5 requires expansion Section 5.5 Examples has very little explanations and show just a few cases. The section is proposed to be expanded, with O/A examples with descriptions and alternative outcomes in order to more thoroughly describe the intended use. See 5.5 in the the attached file for the proposed expansion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Include more fields for attribute registration from 4566bis Section 6 has the form for attribute registration by IANA. There are a couple of fields missing that will be important for use of the specification in the WebRTC environment. Include these fields if that is allowable according to current IANA procedures and if that does not delay the publication of this draft. These fields are needed for use of text media in WebRTC. Change: In two locations from: "Usage Level: media" to: "Usage Level: media, dcsa(subprotocol)" Insert in two locations in the registration forms: "Mux Category: NORMAL" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With these proposed modifications accepted I am convinced that the result will be useful for its purpose. Regards Gunnar Hellstrom ----------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström Omnitor gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se +46 708 204 288 Den 2017-02-06 kl. 16:27, skrev The IESG: > The IESG has received a request from the Selection of Language for > Internet Media WG (slim) to consider the following document: > - 'Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time Communications' > <draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06.txt> as Proposed > Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-02-20. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > Users have various human (natural) language needs, abilities, and > preferences regarding spoken, written, and signed languages. When > establishing interactive communication ("calls") there needs to be a > way to negotiate (communicate and match) the caller's language and > media needs with the capabilities of the called party. This is > especially important with emergency calls, where a call can be > handled by a call taker capable of communicating with the user, or a > translator or relay operator can be bridged into the call during > setup, but this applies to non-emergency calls as well (as an > example, when calling a company call center). > > This document describes the need and a solution using new SDP stream > attributes. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > The document contains these normative downward references. > See RFC 3967 for additional information: > draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat: Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): One-to-One Text Chat (None - ) > Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry. > > -- ----------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström Omnitor gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se +46 708 204 288
- [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-hu… The IESG
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Randall Gellens
- [Slim] Fwd: [IANA #948015] Last Call: <draft-ietf… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-slim-negotiatin… Gunnar Hellström