Re: [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer
"Randall Gellens" <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Thu, 15 February 2018 22:37 UTC
Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
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 CF6E612704A for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:37:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 WCZKc3U38KUU for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1987F12DB6B for <slim@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [99.111.97.174] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:37:45 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>, slim@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:36:49 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate Trial (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <64A8A716-9AB6-4CF6-AE76-1E92AD6454F4@randy.pensive.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2ds2jf+t9fAJ7wHs=mCZjhapU_f4wNoHTNyn7ABZVc-cTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <151555808122.21584.8379796998643581181.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <p06240602d67be148b9db@99.111.97.136> <2c49d430-3fb1-381f-d236-4bc5a6a38c27@omnitor.se> <CAOW+2dtDBKR5q_LO9=kTpgKQJR=P_hy4yzQC=iy8q_WgtH6hyw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240601d67d2f9e1693@99.111.97.136> <p06240603d67d6aa5ec31@99.111.97.136> <p06240604d67d70904f55@99.111.97.136> <p06240606d67d8fbc9d90@99.111.97.136> <f4ef1525-a2d6-5e8f-2168-31a7cedfd0ff@omnitor.se> <CAOW+2ds2jf+t9fAJ7wHs=mCZjhapU_f4wNoHTNyn7ABZVc-cTg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_E4F8F9B0-0CB6-473F-9C70-C2CFC437C0DE_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Embedded-HTML: [{"HTML":[1628, 9824], "plain":[1183, 7133], "uuid":"A3FFF17B-623A-414E-8012-96B116F5C91F"}]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/q_D0JWL9AG8sTZBmxLe8eMp9Im4>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:37:01 -0000
I checked older versions of the draft, and the text seems to clearly indicate that one language per media is negotiated. This is why I resolved the ambiguity between the text and the ABNF in favor of the text. That said, I don’t personally mind if we were to resolve it the other way, and proposed an edit that would do so, but I do feel that the intent of the text has been clear for some time. For example, here is the text in a version from November 2014: In an offer, the 'humintlang-send' values constitute a list in preference order (first is most preferred) of the languages the offerer wishes to send using the media, and the 'humintlang-recv' values constitute a list in preference order of the languages the offerer wishes to receive using the media. … 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'). —Randall On 12 Jan 2018, at 7:44, Bernard Aboba wrote: > Gunnar said: > > "<GH> The IESG review started on version -19, where we had normative > language for allowing multiple languages per media and direction, and > non-normative but quite clear wording (using "is" ) for saying that > the > intention is to have one language per media and direction intended for > use. > > When this difference was questioned, you changed the normative > language, > while others suggested to change the non-normative language. I still > think > that it would be better to change the non-normative language so that > multiple languages per media and direction are allowed. I do not see > how > that would conflict the review situation, but we might need a judgment > on > that from the reviewers. " > > [BA] Yes, -19 did not have normative language about the number of > languages in the Answer and the ABNF allowed multiple languages. > Also, -19 > did not have normative language about whether the languages in the > Answer > need to be present in the Offer. The closest (from -23) is this > sentence: > > In an answer, 'hlang-send' is the language the answerer will send > if > using the media for language (which in most cases is one of the > languages in the offer's 'hlang-recv'), and 'hlang-recv' is the > language the answerer expects to receive if using the media for > language (which in most cases is one of the languages in the > offer's > 'hlang-send'). > > > Section 5.4 includes an example Answer which includes Italian in > response > to an Offer of Spanish, Basque and English. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Gunnar Hellström < > gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> wrote: > >> Den 2018-01-11 kl. 23:04, skrev Randall Gellens: >> >> I realized an additional change was needed, to the discussion of the >> offer/answer model. Attached is a revised diff. >> >> At 11:57 AM -0800 1/11/18, Randall Gellens wrote: >> >> The second of the two remaining open questions is if we should allow >> an >> answer to contain multiple values. I do not think this is the intent >> of >> the text that has been in the draft for some time; regardless, we >> could >> make such a change, but I question if we can do so now, when we've >> essentially passed IESG review. >> >> <GH> The IESG review started on version -19, where we had normative >> language for allowing multiple languages per media and direction, and >> non-normative but quite clear wording (using "is" ) for saying that >> the >> intention is to have one language per media and direction intended >> for use. >> >> When this difference was questioned, you changed the normative >> language, >> while others suggested to change the non-normative language. I still >> think >> that it would be better to change the non-normative language so that >> multiple languages per media and direction are allowed. I do not see >> how >> that would conflict the review situation, but we might need a >> judgment on >> that from the reviewers. >> >> I provided one reason yesterday why it would be better to only have >> one >> language in the answer, but I now realize that that was false. I said >> that >> one language provides better opportunity for the offeror to prepare >> for >> receiving the selected language. But even if the answer contains >> more than >> one language, the answering party should still follow the order of >> preference, and start the call using the first language in the >> hlang-send >> attribute in the media in the answer selected for use. So, all >> arguments >> point at it being better to allow more than one language in the >> answer per >> media and direction. >> >> It also solves an unfair difference we have, that it is possible to >> list >> more than one language per direction if you include languages in >> different >> media, but not for a single media. I see no logical reason for that >> difference, and I do not want to give up the freedom to indicate >> support of >> language in multiple media for the same direction. >> >> The offeror has the best opportunity for assessing which extra >> resources >> would be needed in the call after receiving the answer. I know that >> there >> may currently be economical and policy obstacles for making use of >> that >> opportunity, but it would be sad to block it by not providing the >> full view >> of the support in the answer. >> >> 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. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------------------- >> I also want to throw in food for thought, that I realize is too late >> in >> the process, but still worth thinking about: >> We could just as well have defined attributes only for the directions >> of >> use of the media for language, and let the "lang" attribute list the >> languages. The "lang" attribute has a better definition in rfc4566bis >> than >> before, and the main improvement we provide is that we can indicate >> direction of use of the language. We recommend strongly against >> having >> different preferences and languages in the different directions of a >> media, >> so one language list would be sufficient per media, and the new >> attributes >> could be limited to use a selection of a=hlang-send and a=hlang-recv >> per >> media without their own language lists. Sorry for the late discovery >> of >> this condition. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> --------------------------------- >> Gunnar >> >> >> I edited a version of the draft that contains all remaining >> clarifying >> editorial changes to also make this technical change and attached is >> a diff >> showing what it would look like. However, I think we should not make >> the >> change since it could introduce additional complexities or problems >> that we >> aren't considering. I think we could make such a change in a future >> extension or revision. I don't think we'd have an interoperability >> problem >> since endpoints conformant with the more restrictive version will not >> generate such answers, and would regard regard receiving such answers >> as an >> error, but not one that would fail a call. >> >> >> >> -- >> Randall Gellens >> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >> only >> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >> [XML] is probably the worst format ever designed...it really doesn't >> scale as a >> file format, and it's generally a complete disaster. --Linus >> Torvalds, >> 3/6/2014 >> >> >> Attachment converted: TiLand:diff-with-multiple 1.pdf ( / ) >> (008B9E88) >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing list >> SLIM@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing >> listSLIM@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> Gunnar Hellström >> Omnitorgunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se >> +46 708 204 288 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim --Randall
- [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-nego… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-… Gunnar Hellström
- [Slim] Text stating that negotiation isn't restri… Randall Gellens
- [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer Bernard Aboba
- [Slim] Action or not on multiple values in an ans… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Allowing multiple values in an answer Randall Gellens