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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/18 9:13 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> Alvaro Retana 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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?  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”.

I agree that this is really just some wisdom that is being encouraged, 
and so should not be normative.

	Thanks,
	Paul