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

Randall Gellens <> Sun, 07 January 2018 03:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C68C120726 for <>; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:18:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <HpnwlVrHSc1P>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HpnwlVrHSc1P for <>; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D83120713 for <>; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:19:23 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240600d677405a00ea@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 19:18:47 -0800
To: Bernard Aboba <>, Gunnar Hellström <>, Paul Kyzivat <>
From: Randall Gellens <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 03:18:54 -0000

I will reword the text to be descriptive rather than normative.  The 
intent of the text is to point out that specifying language (not 
modality) combinations that are more difficult to match than 
necessary will likely not lead to ideal results.  Difficult 
combinations could in theory be handled by bridging in additional 
translators, but human language translation adds its own set of 

At 2:50 AM +0000 1/7/18, Bernard Aboba wrote:

>  Paul said:
>  "I agree that this is really just some wisdom that is being 
> encouraged, and so should not be normative."
>  [BA] Agree that it should not be normative. However, the point 
> about subjectivity still applies. I'm not sure what value the 
> SHOULD NOT provides, even if it is in lower case.  For example, is 
> it "difficult" to ask to receive American English in audio but to 
> send ASL in video or American English in text, because the user is 
> speech-impaired, but not hearing-impaired?  Isn't the whole point 
> of the negotiation to determine what languages can be mutually 
> accommodated?
>  On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Paul Kyzivat 
> <<>> wrote:
>  On 1/6/18 9:13 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>  Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>  draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: No Objection
>  When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>  email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>  introductory paragraph, however.)
>  Please refer to 
> <>
>  for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>  The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> <>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Thanks for writing an interesting document!
>  Given that this document doesn't mandate the behavior in the case 
> of not having
>  languages in common, why does it matter if the combination is "difficult to
>  match together" or not?  I'm wondering about this piece of text (from 5.2):
>      ...The
>      two SHOULD NOT be set to languages which are difficult to match
>      together (e.g., specifying a desire to send audio in Hungarian and
>      receive audio in Portuguese will make it difficult to successfully
>      complete the call).
>  I don't understand how "difficult to match" can be enforced from a normative
>  point of view.  Difficulty seems to be a subjective criteria -- the example
>  shows a pair that I would consider difficult too (I don't speak Hungarian!),
>  but other pairings could still be difficult for me but easy for 
> others.  Using
>  "SHOULD NOT" (instead of "MUST NOT") implies that there are cases in which it
>  is ok to do it (again, probably subjectively).  It seems to me that 
> the "SHOULD
>  NOT" could be a simple "should not".
>  I agree that this is really just some wisdom that is being 
> encouraged, and so should not be normative.
>          Thanks,
>          Paul
>  _______________________________________________
>  SLIM mailing list

Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The most general and prevalent association with television viewing is a
heightened sense of living in a 'mean world' of violence and danger.
Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and
controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough
measures and hard-line postures....  They may accept and even welcome
repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities.
    --George Gerbner, dean of Annenberg School of Communication