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

Paul Kyzivat <> Sat, 06 January 2018 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220D0127078; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 06:51:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aKlol_f8TpRO; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 06:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF0A124319; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 06:51:35 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1207440f-acfff70000000ab0-c8-5a50e2750e88
Received: from (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU []) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 09.2A.02736.572E05A5; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 09:51:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w06EpVaE008425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 09:51:32 -0500
References: <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 09:51:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprCKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqFv2KCDKoL1f3mLDvv/MFsu+72ex uPhlPrPFzA+dbA4sHjtn3WX3WLLkJ1MAUxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxoHmHuaCJQIV39u3sTYw TuftYuTkkBAwkdg18zNLFyMXh5DADiaJWVN62EASQgIPmCTeH4kDsYUFiiVObfrJDGKLCAhK fO+ZwQRiMwvkS3zvOsYKUe8nMeXAH7BeNgEtiTmH/rOA2LwC9hKLln4Bq2ERUJH4tHIxI4gt KpAm8erZDmaIGkGJkzOfgNVzCvhLLDx2jRVivpnEvM0PmSFscYlbT+ZD7ZWXaN46m3kCo8As JO2zkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaWVYxyiTmlubq5iZk5xanJusXJiXl5qUW6Jnq5mSV6qSmlmxghQc2/ g7FrvcwhRgEORiUe3hu1/lFCrIllxZW5hxglOZiURHlFnQOihPiS8lMqMxKLM+KLSnNSiw8x SnAwK4nwZp8GKudNSaysSi3Kh0lJc7AoifOqL1H3ExJITyxJzU5NLUgtgsnKcHAoSfAWPwQa KliUmp5akZaZU4KQZuLgBBnOAzS8C6SGt7ggMbc4Mx0if4rRmKOn58YfJo5nM183MAux5OXn pUqJQ4wTACnNKM2DmwZLTK8YxYGeE+bdAlLFA0xqcPNeAa1iAlq16ogvyKqSRISUVAMj01z5 rKP72kTuKn9QsNo08+Ki16s3v1bcOa3gnMPzppBnBYLKBz5rea403ZZwe2pAQXfOBL32oC3J ZeEPGedKiW8VPlFk+Dvib/sLYVNuteUJM28LffkQeML0SNKjNfVWzgc1XA+d6b23p87nc17V y0zuDRtvxjT/TbH4cHrrRE3r4ss8tcYnlViKMxINtZiLihMBoY7vsCcDAAA=
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: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 14:51:43 -0000

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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.