SLIM at IETF96 TUESDAY, JULY 19TH, 2016 10:00-12:30 Chairs: Bernard Aboba, Natasha Rooney Scribe: Brian Rosen Notes are by the main presenter unless stated otherwise. ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-01 Presenter: Nik Tomkinson ------------------------------------ - Changes made to structure - Should we try to get large mailers involved now? - Brian: lots of folks want to use it, but both mailers and clients have to support before these tests can be done - Aleksy: Some folks from ?UTA wanting to test this ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-01 Presnter: Randall Gellens ------------------------------------ Quick update. Ready for WGLC. ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-slim-use-cases-00 Presenter: Chairs ------------------------------------ - Should we put -multilanguage into WGLC? - Randy: Nik wanted to update security consideratios - Nik: Yes, I will be changing them, adding some, not huge - Barry: How soon? - Nik: A few days - Barry: could start WGLC at the end of the meeting? - Humm for objections to WGLC after Nick updates: - Chairs: no objections, will do ------------------------------------ WGLC for -negotiating Presenter: Chairs ------------------------------------ - Gunnar: want new version with changes agreed to - Randy: believe I addressed your comments, any other comments can be addressed in WGLC - Randy: informative discussion of lang attribute in doc was changed. - Chairs: plan to start WGLC and accept comments - Humm for objections to realtime draft to last call: - Chairs: no objections. Start by end of week, it's summer so maybe a month - Randy: 3 weeks? - Brian: Can we do a WGLC on -use-cases - Natasha: Want to look at a rev first, will do this week - Randy: I thought we didn't intend to publish? - Natasha: was intended to be informational - Chairs: can we get a consensus on whether to publish - Randy: yes, agree, we should decide - Brian: Would like to see history documented, but a lot of work to publish - Robert: Should we ask some new reviewers to see if they need the use case doc to understand the mechanism doc? - Randy: at the time we planned to have a working group wiki page for history - Alexey: IESG doesn't want use case docs unless absolutely necessary - Chairs: then let's not publish - Gunnar: Some use cases are not fulfilled by the draft, and we might lose information. Possibly could be in the other drafts what they don't cover. - Randy: if we publish on a wiki, then we have it for history ------------------------------------ Real time aspects Presenter: Gunnar Hellstrom ------------------------------------ - On the issue of do we have to use all languages negotiated? - Randy: no - Gunnar: no - On the issue of what "intended for" in 6.2 - Randy: wording is intended to distinguish intention to use language for human language communication - Randy: intent of draft to do protocol level mechanical negotiation, not what user needs - Brian: Intent of the draft is a protocol mechanism to mechanically handle routing and other mechanical mechanisms. It DOES NOT intend to influence human behavior - Gunnar: but the user needs guidance - Randy: that is out of scope of draft. If you want to create a guidance document on user interface or user behavior, please write a draft - Gunnar: SDP tells you - Dave: IETF doesn't do user behavior specs and shouldn't - Brian: Again, this is not a user behavior doc, it's a mechanical means to guide computers and other mechanical systems - Dave: we have no expertise in human interface and should stay away from it - Randy: layer violation - Barry: The way you get indication to the user is varied, anything defining that is out of scope - On the issue of Advisory vs reguired in 6.3, should a call ever be failed? - Brian: Need the mechanism to fail, SIP fork for example - Randy: no requirement to fail, it is just possible On the issue of interaction between multiple media and multiple languages - Randy: On the issue of the lang attribute, what is there now doesn't constrain any future interpretation of the attribute. - Chairs: We agreed that mmusic decides interpretation of the -lang attribute - Gunnar: I provided a suggested rewording to fix this - Chairs: Take to the list - Brian: discuss changes to our document on our list, then send agred text to mmusic for comment - Any other work for work group to - Tom Gallagher (name may not be correct): use cases has a security considerations section that needs to survive somewhere - Randy: do you think the security sections of the docs are insufficient? - Chairs: bring up in last call ------------------------------------ Wrap Up Presenter: Natasha Rooney ------------------------------------ Group will move documents to WGLC by the end of the week. Thanks to scribes, authors and ADs.