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

Randall Gellens <> Sun, 07 January 2018 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8EE120713; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <boOlDrdUzD50>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id boOlDrdUzD50; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B57D1201F8; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:27:47 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240603d677432daa5b@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 19:27:11 -0800
To: Alvaro Retana <>, The IESG <>
From: Randall Gellens <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 03:27:17 -0000

At 6:13 AM -0800 1/6/18, Alvaro Retana wrote:

>  Thanks for writing an interesting document!
>  Given that this document doesn't mandate the behavior in the case 
> of not having
>  languages in common, why does it matter if the combination is "difficult to
>  match together" or not?

The goal is to have an interactive session with the greatest chance 
of mutual communication.

>    I'm wondering about this piece of text (from 5.2):
>     ...The
>     two SHOULD NOT be set to languages which are difficult to match
>     together (e.g., specifying a desire to send audio in Hungarian and
>     receive audio in Portuguese will make it difficult to successfully
>     complete the call).
>  I don't understand how "difficult to match" can be enforced from a normative
>  point of view.  Difficulty seems to be a subjective criteria -- the example
>  shows a pair that I would consider difficult too (I don't speak Hungarian!),
>  but other pairings could still be difficult for me but easy for 
> others.  Using
>  "SHOULD NOT" (instead of "MUST NOT") implies that there are cases in which it
>  is ok to do it (again, probably subjectively).  It seems to me that 
> the "SHOULD
>  NOT" could be a simple "should not".

Please see my reply to Bernard and Paul; I will reword the text to be 
descriptive rather than normative.

>  BTW, that reminds me: please use the template text from rfc8174 (instead of
>  rfc2119).

Thanks for catching this.

>  Nit:  It would be nice to expand SPD in the abstract and put a reference to
>  rfc4566 in the Introduction.

You mean SDP?  OK.

Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
   "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
   "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
so many different things."
   "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master  --
that's all."