Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)
Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Mon, 08 January 2018 19:02 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 2139312025C for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:02:17 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 YNHmV_C2HdXT for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bin-vsp-out-01.atm.binero.net (bin-mail-out-05.binero.net [195.74.38.228]) (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 BFA3B12D7E9 for <slim@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:02:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: 4de80f89-f4a6-11e7-ab14-005056917a89
Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Received: from [192.168.2.136] (unknown [83.209.156.53]) by bin-vsp-out-01.atm.binero.net (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 4de80f89-f4a6-11e7-ab14-005056917a89; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 20:01:17 +0100 (CET)
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "slim@ietf.org" <slim@ietf.org>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
References: <151528917109.10947.12045320996364596931.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABcZeBNQLuaMLa3=gWqaYHL_ynQ1t+HRtsgEebCRORm+OUA0iw@mail.gmail.com> <ECD0168D-9C53-4ACA-BF28-C631DAE38A4D@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPwb5LzCEpaOMbR9CeETHSZiigovkTMhKm_3K=hsWZckA@mail.gmail.com> <p06240601d6785f2e3ad4@99.111.97.136> <CABcZeBNX4iTuvuqvvqjAQEgnhkV4f5Z1e8Ac2ebWOf=prAcPKg@mail.gmail.com> <p06240603d6795cbba847@99.111.97.136> <CABcZeBPsXfPGBRMTRJSNZiHaXA8dT1MYXsU+3GdPsmLyQHZigg@mail.gmail.com> <p06240605d679600b6eea@99.111.97.136> <p06240606d67963d25192@99.111.97.136> <CABcZeBNSnzAgzAwZN4_hWWYckLTSu6h0qRBdot0E+-1jm9kRyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Message-ID: <4966cfc1-089c-4441-ce05-45181272e7b0@omnitor.se>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 20:01:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNSnzAgzAwZN4_hWWYckLTSu6h0qRBdot0E+-1jm9kRyw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6BC2231022725173F184B4DF"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/rT4sgFmfkjLofLJ2VpkeVArtpE4>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 19:02:17 -0000
Thanks Randall for providing your proposed wording. I see a need for some small adjustments. See inline. Den 2018-01-08 kl. 19:22, skrev Eric Rescorla: > WFM. thanks > > -Ekr > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Randall Gellens > <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org <mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>> wrote: > > At 9:57 AM -0800 1/8/18, Randall Gellens wrote: > > At 9:48 AM -0800 1/8/18, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Randall Gellens > <<mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org > <mailto:rg%2Bietf@randy.pensive.org>>rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org > <mailto:rg%2Bietf@randy.pensive.org>> wrote: > > At 5:56 PM -0800 1/7/18, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Randall Gellens > <<mailto:<mailto:rg%2Bietf@randy.pensive.org > <mailto:rg%252Bietf@randy.pensive.org>>rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org > <mailto:rg%2Bietf@randy.pensive.org>><mailto:rg%2Bietf@randy.pensive.org > <mailto:rg%252Bietf@randy.pensive.org>>rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org > <mailto:rg%2Bietf@randy.pensive.org>> wrote: > > At 6:36 AM -0800 1/7/18, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Bernard Aboba > <<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>>bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>><mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>>bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>><mailto:<mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>>bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>><mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>>bernard.aboba@gmail.com > <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Eric Rescorla > <<mailto:<mailto:<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>><mailto:ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>><mailto:<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>><mailto:ekr@rtfm.com > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>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. > > > Thanks. I think it would be helpful to put this logic > in the draft. > > > I am not clear on what logic we want to add to the > draft, or what about the draft this logic is explaining. > > > It would be helpful to explain in the draft why you > have deviated from the otherwise near-universal SDP > negotiation pattern of each side advertising what it accepts. > > > I'm not clear on what you're referring to. Are you > talking about early offer versus late offer? To my > understanding, the draft follows a typical offer/answer > model: the caller lists the media and languages it > supports, and the callee answers with the media and > languages it supports. > > > That's not what this draft does. The typical SDP pattern > is what you say here: that the offerer (which might or > might not be the caller) lists what it supports and the > answerer lists what it supports. > So, for instance, the offerer might list "VP8, H.264" > and the answerer might respond with "VP8, H.264", at which > point either side could use either codec (or intermix > them). What this draft does is have the offerer list what > it supports and the answerer picks exactly one. I > understood from the previous emails in the thread that the > reason for this design was so that each side then knew > exactly what languages would be used. However, as noted > upthread, this draft does not provide this function if > early media is used, because the media is delivered to the > offerer prior to receiving the answer, so the offerer is > in the same position as it would be with the typical > negotiation model. > > > Thanks, I think I understand your concern now. You'd like > the draft to explain why the answer contains one language per > media stream, which is partly for provide knowledge so both > ends know what has been negotiated, but also because > supporting languages and/or modalities may require taking > extra steps, such as having a call handled by an agent who > speaks a requested language and/or can use a requested > modality, or bridging external translation or relay resources > into the call, etc. The answerer indicates which additional > steps it is committing to. These steps may or may not be in > place in time for early media. I can add text explaining this > to the Introduction. > > > > The third paragraph below is the additional text added to the > Introduction (the first two paragraphs are unchanged): > > By treating language as another SDP attribute that is negotiated > along with other aspects of a media stream, it becomes possible to > accommodate a range of users' needs and called party > facilities. For > example, some users may be able to speak several languages, but > have > a preference. Some called parties may support some of those > languages internally but require the use of a translation > service for > others, or may have a limited number of call takers able to use > certain languages. Another example would be a user who is able to > speak but is deaf or hard-of-hearing and and desires a voice stream > to send spoken language plus a text stream to receive written > language. Making language a media attribute allows the standard > session negotiation mechanism to handle this by providing the > information and mechanism for the endpoints to make appropriate > decisions. > > The term "negotiation" is used here rather than "indication" > because > human language (spoken/written/signed) can be negotiated in the > same > manner as media (audio/text/video) and codecs. For example, if we > think of a user calling an airline reservation center, the user may > have a set of languages he or she speaks, with perhaps preferences > for one or a few, while the airline reservation center will > support a > fixed set of languages. Negotiation should select the user's most > preferred language that is supported by the call center. Both sides > should be aware of which language was negotiated. This is > conceptually similar to the way other aspects of each media stream > are negotiated using SDP (e.g., media type and codecs). > > In the offer/answer model used here, the offer contains a set of > languages per media that the caller is capable of using, and the > <GH> "caller" should be "offerer" to match o/a language. > > answer contains one language per media that the answerer will > <GH>"one language per media that the answerer will support" should be "one language per media and direction that the answerer will support for language communication" > > support. Supporting languages and/or modalities can require taking > extra steps, such as having a call handled by an agent who speaks a > requested language and/or with the ability to use a requested > modality, or bridging external translation or relay resources into > the call, etc. The answerer indicates in the answer which > additional > steps it is committing to. This model also provides knowledge so > <GH>"which additional steps it is committing to" should be "the resulting language and modality support when the additional steps are applied" > > both ends know what has been negotiated. Note that additional > steps > required to support the indicated languages or modalities may > or may > not be in place in time for any early media. > > /Gunnar > > > > > That said, as I noted in my review, it is still > possible to get some media (early media) prior to > receiving the answer, so this isn't a complete solution. > > > The draft provides a useful mechanism that will be > helpful. As an example of the fact that others find it > useful, NENA has included it in it's next-generation > emergency call architecture standards. The draft does not > try to solve all problems related to human language in > real-time calling. > > > I don't think I claimed it wasn't useful. > > The rationale provided for this design is that you wish > to have the answerer notify the offerer of which language > it would be providing. The point I am making is that there > is at least one important case where this design does not > provide that, which seems like it's relevant to the design > question. > > > I think I'm still not understanding your concern. Even > without providing a mechanism for the caller to know the > languages used with any early media, the draft is still > meeting a need. > > > I'm honestly not sure what you're responding to here. > I'm not saying that the draft doesn't meet a need. > > -Ekr > > > > > -- > Randall Gellens > Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak > for myself only > -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- > Imagination is more important than facts. --Albert Einstein > > > > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org <mailto:SLIM@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim> > > > > -- > Randall Gellens > Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for > myself only > -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- > Algol was a great improvement on most of its successors. > --C.A.R Hoare > > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org <mailto:SLIM@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim> > > > > -- > Randall Gellens > Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself > only > -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- > If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are > headed. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim -- ----------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström Omnitor gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se +46 708 204 288
- [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens (IETF)
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-… Gunnar Hellström
- [Slim] Updated version addresses comments receive… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Updated version addresses comments rec… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Slim] Updated version addresses comments rec… Randall Gellens