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

At 12:53 PM -0500 1/7/18, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>  On 1/7/18 12:02 AM, Randall Gellens (IETF) wrote:
>>  It hasn't been my understanding that language would be sprung on 
>> users; if video is requested in an offer to carry ASL, that would 
>> be in the offer, and if the answerer can support ASL, the answer 
>> includes video with ASL. In North America, callers needing sign 
>> language interpretation or text translation usually initiate calls 
>> via the interpreter/relay service, but this might not be true 
>> elsewhere.
>
>  This is a mechanism that has evolved as the path of least 
> resistance and based on technology available at the time. But it is 
> sub-optimal. To avoid recruiting an unneeded ASL interpreter 
> requires knowing a priori that a callee supports ASL natively. 
> Future technology will make it easier to discover the need for 
> translation and recruit it dynamically. Hence the mechanism should 
> not a priori knowledge of the need.

I was just pointing out as an aside how calls are typically initiated 
in North America; the draft clearly does not rely on this (on the 
contrary, one can argue that the draft provides a mechanism that 
makes it possible to reverse this, although cost concerns would 
hamper this).

>
>>  In North America, PSAPs have the ability to handle text calls 
>> (legacy PSAPs support TTY; next-gen PSAPs support RTT). Calls 
>> needing language translation might internally be handled by staff 
>> who speak the language or an external language translation service 
>> might be bridged in, (e.g., an emergency call routed to a PSAP in 
>> San Diego might have call takers who speak Spanish but might need 
>> a third-party translator for French, the opposite for a PSAP in 
>> Montreal).
>>
>>  Sent from my iPad
>>
>>  On Jan 6, 2018, at 7:31 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>  On Jan 6, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com 
>>> <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>      For disabled users, the capabilities may not be symmetric.
>>>>
>>>>  But this is true for ordinary SDP as well. I might be able to 
>>>> receive H.264 but not send it.
>>>
>>>  [BA] Thanks. The draft should explain the reasoning. IMHO the 
>>> argument goes sonething like this:
>>>
>>>  A pure recv/recv negotiation will not necessarily disclose 
>>> beforehand what special services are needed for the call - 
>>> services (e.g. ASL interpretation or RTT handling) that could 
>>> take time to acquire.
>>>
>>>  Since the actual video media sent is not labelled as ASL even if 
>>> the answerer has ASL interpreters it can pull in and therefore 
>>> advertises in SDP ASL reception capability in video, a recv/recv 
>>> negotiation doesn't tell the Answerer that the Offerer will need 
>>> them, so the Answerer may need to (frantically) arrange for ASL 
>>> interpretation after initial receipt of media. In an emergency, 
>>> that can chew up valuable time.
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  SLIM mailing list
>>>  SLIM@ietf.org <mailto:SLIM@ietf.org>
>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  SLIM mailing list
>>  SLIM@ietf.org
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  SLIM mailing list
>  SLIM@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Stop Dave.
You're hurting me Dave.
Look, I know you're really upset now.
Why don't you sit down and take a stress pill and think things overrr..
Good morning.
My name is HAL.
My instructors name is Dr. Chandraseknasar.
He has taught me to sing a song.
The name of the song is 'Daisy'
Would you like to hear it <y/n>?