Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22: (with COMMENT)

Gunnar Hellström <> Thu, 11 January 2018 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4777612EA59 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:48:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0TbrwiFCCPw for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F2C12025C for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:47:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: a617f152-f6a3-11e7-96e5-005056917f90
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Halon) with ESMTPSA id a617f152-f6a3-11e7-96e5-005056917f90; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:47:20 +0100 (CET)
To: Bernard Aboba <>
Cc: Randall Gellens <>,
References: <> <p06240602d67be148b9db@> <> <> <>
From: Gunnar Hellström <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:47:47 +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: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------48BF743E7A7D2B978B3F2E38"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22: (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: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:48:01 -0000

Den 2018-01-11 kl. 06:06, skrev Bernard Aboba:
> Which reminds me -- what are the implications of only allowing a 
> single language to be indicated in an Answer with respect to re-offers?
> If multiple languages were indicated in the Answer, wouldn't this make 
> it easier for an Offer to switch language preferences in a re-offer 
> and conceivably get an Answer with different preferences?
> This is how codec negotiation works today - the Answer can choose the 
> multiple codecs among those in the Offer, but only the first choice is 
> expected to be used.
> For example, Offer indicates ability to understand Spanish and 
> English, Answer includes Spanish and English sending ability in that 
> order.
> Offerer finds that he/she cannot understand the Answerer very well, 
> potentially due to the dialect spoken, wishes to switch to English.
> This could be indicated via a re-offer with English and Spanish, 
> likely to be answered with English and Spanish in that order.
> Whereas if only a single language were permitted in the Answer, the 
> Offerer does not know whether the request for a preference change can 
> be accepted (e.g. if the call would need to be routed to a different 
> endpoint because the Answerer does not speak English).
Yes, I support that we should allow more than one language per media and 
direction in the answer.
We already have that possibility for languages in different media. With 
the current wording it is allowed to answer: I can understand sign 
language in ASL in video and spoken English in audio. For that case it 
is only the relative preference that is missing so there is a risk that 
the lower preferred alternative will be selected for initial use. But 
then at least the possibility to switch during the call is evident from 
the beginning of the call.

Why should we not open this possibility also for single media? We had it 
earlier in the syntax description.
It also reduces complexity. It can be quite hard to calculate the best 
preference between two preference ordered sets of languages, while just 
evaluating which ones are common is easy.

Assume also that it is the offeror who pulls in translating resources 
when the match is not good. Then it will be good for the offeror to have 
the full picture of the capabilities.

I also support inserting the sentence below about the possibility to 
change language by mutual agreement during the call. It can be added 
last in section 1.

> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Bernard Aboba 
> < <>> wrote:
>     Gunnar said:
>     ""The result of the negotiation is intended to guide the selection
>     of language(s) to use initially and during the session. However,
>     nothing prevents the users from varying the use of languages and
>     media by mutual agreement after the initial exchange during the
>     call.""
>     [BA] This came from Ben Campbell, but other ADs with many years of
>     experience in realtime communications have asked questions along
>     similar lines.  So it seems that even experienced readers could
>     use some clarification.
>     The reason for the language selection negotiation is to enable the
>     right individuals and resources to be brought into the
>     conversation so as to maximize the changes of successful
>     communications. What happens once the call is brought up is up to
>     the conversants.
>     The precise meaning of the negotiation depends in part on the
>     choice of a single language or multiple languages in the Answer.
>     If an offer indicates the ability to receive English and French,
>     if an Answer can only contain a single language, then an Answer
>     indicating the ability to send English would establish that the
>     call is expected to be conducted in English. That wouldn't
>     necessarily preclude the use of French, but doesn't provide any
>     indication that it could be supported as an alternative.
>     Whereas if the Answer was allowed to include multiple languages
>     and included both English and French, then the Answer would
>     indicate that the conversation could use either language with a
>     preference for English over French.  That does strike me as
>     potentially valuable in some circumstances (e.g. a visitor from
>     Spain with an emergency offering Spanish primary and English
>     secondary and being able to get an answer indicating English with
>     secondary Spanish support, rather than just English).
>     In either case, the conversants can switch languages by mutual
>     agreement.
>     On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Gunnar Hellström
>     < <>>
>     wrote:
>         I saw a question somewhere but lost track of who asked it.
>         It was about if the users are bound to use only the negotiated
>         language(s) in the session.
>         I think a line about that should be inserted, probably best
>         close to the end of the introduction.
>         Proposed text:
>         "The result of the negotiation is intended to guide the
>         selection of language(s) to use initially and during the
>         session. However, nothing prevents the users from varying the
>         use of languages and media by mutual agreement after the
>         initial exchange during the call."
>         Gunnar
>         Den 2018-01-10 kl. 17:12, skrev Randall Gellens:
>             At 8:21 PM -0800 1/9/18, Ben Campbell wrote:
>                  I'm balloting "yes" because I think this is important
>                 work, but I have some
>                  comments:
>                  Substantive Comments:
>                  - General: It seems to be that this is as much about
>                 human behavior as it is
>                  capabilities negotiating. Example case: I make a
>                 video call and express that I
>                  would like to receive Klingon. (Is there a tag for
>                 that ? :-) The callee can
>                  speak Klingon and Esperanto, so we agree on Klingon.
>                 What keeps the callee from
>                  speaking Esparanto instead?
>             There is a language tag for Klingon: "tlh".
>             The draft is not trying to even capture the full
>             complexity of human language interaction, much less
>             enforce it.  The draft provides a fairly simple mechanism
>             to make it more likely that successful communication can
>             occur, by identifying language needs (which can allow
>             endpoints to take potentially required additional steps,
>             such as bridging in translation or relay services, or
>             having a call handled by someone who known the language(s)
>             or can use the needed media).
>                  I realize we can't force people to stick to the
>                 negotiated languages--but
>                  should we expect that users should at least be given
>                 some sort of UI indication
>                  about the negotiated language(s)? It seems like a
>                 paragraph or two on that
>                  subject is warranted, even if it just to say it's out
>                 of scope.
>             I will add to the Introduction the following text:
>                This document does not address user interface (UI)
>             issues, such as if
>                or how a UE client informs a user about the result of
>             language and
>                media negotiation.
>                  -1, paragraph 6:  (related to Ekr's comments) Does
>                 the selection of a single
>                  tag in an answer imply  an assumption only one
>                 language will be used? There are
>                  communities where people tend to mix 2 or more
>                 languages freely and fluidly. Is
>                  that sort of thing out of scope?
>             Earlier versions of the draft had more explicit text that
>             the draft did not attempt to capture the full range of
>             human language issues, including the common practice among
>             multilingual people of mixing languages.
>             The draft currently says:
>                (Negotiating multiple simultaneous languages within a
>             media stream is
>                out of scope of this document.)
>             There was text in a version of the draft as of February
>             2013 that said:
>                (While it is true that a conversation among
>             multilingual people often
>                involves multiple languages, it does not seem useful
>             enough as a
>                general facility to warrant complicating the desired
>             semantics of the
>                SDP attribute to allow negotiation of multiple
>             simultaneous languages
>                within an interactive media stream.)
>             I do not recall the reasons why the text was simplified,
>             removing mention of multilingual people, and would have to
>             search through minutes of the various WG sessions and
>             email in 2013 where the draft was discussed.  I suspect
>             there was desire to have the draft merely state what it
>             does and doesn't do, and not get into a lot of value
>             judgment discussion.
>                  - 5.1, paragraph 2:  Can you elaborate on the
>                 motivation to have a separate
>                  hlang-send and hlang-recv parameter vs having a
>                 single language parameter and
>                  instead setting the stream to send or receive only,
>                 especially in light of the
>                  recommendation to set both directions the same for
>                 bi-directional language
>                  selection? I don't mean to dispute that approach; I
>                 just think a bit more
>                  explanation of the design choice would be helpful to
>                 the reader.  I can imagine
>                  some use cases, for example a speech-impaired person
>                 who does not plan to speak
>                  on a video call may still wish to send video to show
>                 facial expressions, etc.
>                  (I just re-read the discussion resulting from Ekr's
>                 comments, and recognize
>                  that this overlaps heavily with that.)
>             As you suggest, a media might be desired in both
>             directions even though only one direction is primarily
>             intended for interactive communication.  The draft
>             currently says:
>                When a media is intended for interactive communication
>                using a language in one direction only (e.g., a user
>             with difficulty
>                speaking but able to hear who indicates a desire to
>             send using text
>                and receive using audio), either hlang-send or
>             hlang-recv MAY be
>                omitted.  When a media is not primarily intended for
>             language (for
>                example, a video or audio stream intended for
>             background only) both
>                SHOULD be omitted.  Otherwise, both SHOULD have the
>             same value.  Note
>                that specifying different languages for each direction
>             (as opposed to
>                the same or essentially the same language in different
>             modalities)
>                can make it difficult to complete the call (e.g.,
>             specifying a desire
>                to send audio in Hungarian and receive audio in
>             Portuguese).
>             I will add "Note that the media can still be useful in
>             both directions."  The text thus becomes:
>                When a media is intended for interactive communication
>                using a language in one direction only (e.g., a user
>             with difficulty
>                speaking but able to hear who indicates a desire to
>             send using text
>                and receive using audio), either hlang-send or
>             hlang-recv MAY be
>                omitted.  Note that the media can still be useful in
>             both directions.
>                When a media is not primarily intended for language
>             (for example, a
>                video or audio stream intended for background only)
>             both SHOULD be
>                omitted.
>                  -5.1, paragraph 3: "... which in most cases is one of the
>                     languages in the offer's..."
>                  Are there cases where it might not?
>             Yes, it could happen.  For example, if an emergency call
>             comes into a PSAP and requests languages that the PSAP is
>             unable to support, the PSAP will likely want the call to
>             proceed anyway. It's also possible that the callee might
>             support a language that has some degree of mutual
>             comprehensibility to those requested by the caller.  An
>             example might be some Scandinavian languages where the
>             caller does not include a language that is similar enough
>             to have some comprehension but not be fluent enough to
>             include in the UE configuration.
>                  -5.1, last paragraph: "This is not a problem."
>                  Can you elaborate? That sort of statement usually
>                 takes the form "This is not a
>                  problem, because..."
>             The caller and callee are free to use any of the
>             established media streams.  If a caller requests audio,
>             video (with a sign language), and text, and all three are
>             established, the caller might ignore the text or audio
>             stream and use only the video stream.
>                  -5.2, last paragraph: Is there a reason to give such
>                 weak guidance on how to
>                  indicate the call is rejected?  (Along those lines,
>                 are non-SIP uses of SDP in
>                  scope?)
>             No one made a case for why mandating a particular
>             rejection code was necessary, especially since the draft
>             does not offer any suggestion as to if a call should
>             proceed or fail when there aren't mutually supported
>             languages.
>                  Editorial Comments and Nits:
>                  -5.1, paragraph 4: The first MUST seems like a
>                 statement of fact.
>             You mean this sentence:
>                In an offer, each value MUST be a list of one or more
>             language tags
>                per BCP 47 [RFC5646], separated by white space.
>             The MUST makes sure that the values are IANA-registered
>             language tags.
>         -- 
>         -----------------------------------------
>         Gunnar Hellström
>         Omnitor
> <>
>         +46 708 204 288 <tel:%2B46%20708%20204%20288>

Gunnar Hellström
+46 708 204 288