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

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 14:04, skrev Mirja Kühlewind:
> Mirja Kühlewind 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> One question: I can't really imagine cases where the send and recv would be
> used to indicate different things. Can you provide an example (and better
> explain in the document why this 'complexity' was added)?
It will be rare with different languages in the different directions for 
the same media.
It is more likely to find examples when it is important to only indicate 
hlang-send in one medium and only hlang-recv in another medium. Other 
available language indications all assume that you want to use the same 
modality and language in both directions. That does not fit the users 
who for example:

1. Can talk but not hear, so specifying e.g. hlang-send for spoken 
English in audio and hlang-recv for written English in text.
2. Can sign but not see (deaf-blind user) specifying e.g. hlang-send for 
American Sign Language and hlang-recv for written English in text.
3. Can hear but not talk clearly. specifying e.g. hlang-recv for spoken 
English in audio and hlang-send for written English in text.


An example of different languages in different directions of the same 
media that we have mentioned sometimes, but seen as a warning against 
having too rigid checking of matches rather than something to include in 
real negotiation, is use of languages that are close relatives, like 
Norweigan and Swedish. If I who speak Swedish, get a person talking 
Norwegian on the phone, I continue talking Swedish and the other person 
talks Norwegian, and we have a good conversation, understanding but not 
being able to speak the language of the other party. Getting a match for 
that case would require me to indicate hlang-send with spoken Swedish, 
and hlang-recv with spoken Swedish and  Norwegian. But I cannot imagine 
that I will remember to include receiving Norwegian in my settings, so 
it will instead be a matter for the matching and negotiation to accept 
the call and inform the users about the expected slight mismatch in 
languages in this call.  I think similar situations can appear between 
Italian and Spanish and other related language pairs.

Regards
Gunnar

>
> One purely editorial note: I think section 5.1 could simply be removed before
> final publication as part of the reasoning is given in the intro already.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
[e-mail]
[phone]