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

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 <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
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
> SLIM@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Gunnar Hellström
> Omnitorgunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
> +46 708 204 288
>
>