From nobody Mon Apr 6 22:45:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0061B318A for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:45:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aDe5M4ozT2IB for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bin-vsp-out-04.atm.binero.net (vsp-authed01.binero.net [195.74.38.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C3211B3188 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:45:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Halon-ID: 44a2e6df-dce9-11e4-ace8-005056917c0c Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se Received: from [192.168.2.42] (unknown [77.53.231.174]) by bin-vsp-out-04.atm.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:45:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55236EEF.2040502@omnitor.se> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:45:19 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=F6m?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: slim@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050003070603000105030509" Archived-At: Subject: [Slim] XMPP-STOX example of use of lang attribute X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 05:45:25 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050003070603000105030509 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wanted to follow up the XMPP chat example of using the lang attribute in SDP to understand how far from our goals it is. In chapter 6 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language-01 there is a reference to draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat-04 showing the use of the lang attribute in SDP. However, that draft is now replaced bydraft-ietf-stox-chat and the lang attributes are deleted from the examples. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 This does not mean that the discussion in chapter 6 would be wrong. It only means that the reference to the SIP-XMPP-CHAT interop draft is not appropriate anymore and would need to be replaced or deleted. Does anyone know a good replacement? /Gunnar --------------050003070603000105030509 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I wanted to follow up the XMPP chat example of using the lang attribute in SDP to understand how far from our goals it is.

In chapter 6 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language-01 there is a reference to

draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat-04  showing the use of the lang attribute in SDP.

However, that draft is now replaced by draft-ietf-stox-chat  and the lang attributes are deleted from the examples.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11

This does not mean that the discussion in chapter 6 would be wrong. It only means that the reference to the 
SIP-XMPP-CHAT interop draft is not appropriate anymore and would need to be replaced or deleted. 
Does anyone know a good replacement?   

/Gunnar

--------------050003070603000105030509-- From nobody Tue Apr 7 08:59:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8691B3721 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:59:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V36pTBYurUzZ for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50ECD1B3715 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:58:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1428422339; x=1459958339; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to: cc:reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HuywMRK6sLHQ9ACKC3TdAHqxD49ljbRWNCv8M128r4w=; b=FMsoOb+ZGJvuix/B8Rs7SM5z/10ONxMJIUyzCoK9xwH72HatLNVGWYAF jhVO5hau1gz8WYh/RwGeM/DqFQHWoXy6gE+BgsRzsM2LysmOAESafLNQi NwTulhjqBcrCPBUsPM/tgkuZ5la4ihYTFfcQVANnx1krM+66VRgsZEcav s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7763"; a="112146636" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Apr 2015 08:58:58 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,538,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="889369237" Received: from ocean.qualcomm.com ([10.53.76.71]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2015 08:58:59 -0700 Received: from 10.50.231.14 (SquirrelMail authenticated user randy) by ocean.qualcomm.com with HTTP; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:58:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3b077c1c2a574d5307b3af668aaaccfa.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <55236EEF.2040502@omnitor.se> References: <55236EEF.2040502@omnitor.se> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:58:58 -0700 From: "Randall Gellens" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Gunnar_Hellstr=F6m=22?= User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Slim] XMPP-STOX example of use of lang attribute X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randall Gellens List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:59:01 -0000 > I wanted to follow up the XMPP chat example of using the lang attribute > in SDP to understand how far from our goals it is. > > In chapter 6 of > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language-01 > there is a reference to > > draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat-04 showing the use of the lang attribute > in SDP. > > However, that draft is now replaced bydraft-ietf-stox-chat and the lang > attributes are deleted from the examples. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 > > This does not mean that the discussion in chapter 6 would be wrong. It > only means that the reference to the > SIP-XMPP-CHAT interop draft is not appropriate anymore and would need to > be replaced or deleted. > Does anyone know a good replacement? Hi Gunnar, The reference is only an informative example of how the current language SDP attribute is misunderstood to be what we want rather than what is specified in its definition. From nobody Tue Apr 7 16:48:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FEA1ACCF9 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:48:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6-U-wpf4xDCi for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bin-vsp-out-03.atm.binero.net (vsp-authed01.binero.net [195.74.38.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A28D91ACCF8 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Halon-ID: a06c1a43-dd80-11e4-995c-0050569116f7 Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se Received: from [192.168.2.42] (unknown [77.53.231.174]) by bin-vsp-out-03.atm.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 01:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55246CE0.4030605@omnitor.se> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 01:48:48 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=F6m?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randall Gellens References: <55236EEF.2040502@omnitor.se> <3b077c1c2a574d5307b3af668aaaccfa.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <3b077c1c2a574d5307b3af668aaaccfa.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Slim] XMPP-STOX example of use of lang attribute X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 23:48:54 -0000 Randall Gellens skrev den 2015-04-07 17:58: >> I wanted to follow up the XMPP chat example of using the lang attribute >> in SDP to understand how far from our goals it is. >> >> In chapter 6 of >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language-01 >> there is a reference to >> >> draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat-04 showing the use of the lang attribute >> in SDP. >> >> However, that draft is now replaced bydraft-ietf-stox-chat and the lang >> attributes are deleted from the examples. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 >> >> This does not mean that the discussion in chapter 6 would be wrong. It >> only means that the reference to the >> SIP-XMPP-CHAT interop draft is not appropriate anymore and would need to >> be replaced or deleted. >> Does anyone know a good replacement? > Hi Gunnar, > > The reference is only an informative example of how the current language > SDP attribute is misunderstood to be what we want rather than what is > specified in its definition. I mean that we cannot keep it as a reference in the draft since it is not included in the current STOX draft. Even if it is informational, I do not think it is appropriate to reference expired IETF drafts. Did it really not give us partially what we want and can be used as STOX intended, as long as we do not need directional characteristics and relative preference between media or absolute preference? Gunnar > -- ----------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström Omnitor gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se +46 708 204 288 From nobody Tue Apr 7 17:48:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D39B1ACE6C for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ziuaHLzYcKjH for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366E61AC415 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:47:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1428454079; x=1459990079; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to: cc:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:importance; bh=sAxxTu4vFsaanOnF6LiZMCHiHFHCrr+l3DreiTRxKkc=; b=LlRNknKZ3by5qlv8Ag7B8y70pjZOPrwvOy2PxWy2AJVD1p0n21ZvwCGh j1aFJNJC0bQJiBzsbjDkGSTSH9LBofiKOatw9tYmdKKObJb3BAmoySjOc //SZCgbJDILFOKqOwS7rj4qkncYJUua0jEhQ5EqDCpXxI7e9mGKhsewF9 A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7764"; a="86500840" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Apr 2015 17:47:58 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,541,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="856345852" Received: from ocean.qualcomm.com ([10.53.76.71]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2015 17:47:57 -0700 Received: from 10.50.231.223 (SquirrelMail authenticated user randy) by ocean.qualcomm.com with HTTP; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:47:57 -0700 Message-ID: <77603680700e1f6217ec94e617d16c8f.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <55246CE0.4030605@omnitor.se> References: <55236EEF.2040502@omnitor.se> <3b077c1c2a574d5307b3af668aaaccfa.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <55246CE0.4030605@omnitor.se> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:47:57 -0700 From: "Randall Gellens" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Gunnar_Hellstr=F6m=22?= User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Slim] XMPP-STOX example of use of lang attribute X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randall Gellens List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:48:01 -0000 > Randall Gellens skrev den 2015-04-07 17:58: >>> I wanted to follow up the XMPP chat example of using the lang attribute >>> in SDP to understand how far from our goals it is. >>> >>> In chapter 6 of >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language-01 >>> there is a reference to >>> >>> draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat-04 showing the use of the lang >>> attribute >>> in SDP. >>> >>> However, that draft is now replaced bydraft-ietf-stox-chat and the >>> lang >>> attributes are deleted from the examples. >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 >>> >>> This does not mean that the discussion in chapter 6 would be wrong. It >>> only means that the reference to the >>> SIP-XMPP-CHAT interop draft is not appropriate anymore and would need >>> to >>> be replaced or deleted. >>> Does anyone know a good replacement? >> Hi Gunnar, >> >> The reference is only an informative example of how the current language >> SDP attribute is misunderstood to be what we want rather than what is >> specified in its definition. > I mean that we cannot keep it as a reference in the draft since it is > not included in the current STOX draft. Even if it is informational, I > do not think it is appropriate to reference expired IETF drafts. Yes, the reference to the expired draft should be deleted. > Did it really not give us partially what we want and can be used as STOX > intended, as long as we do not need directional characteristics and > relative preference between media or absolute preference? The problem is that the definition of the attribute is that it describes the content and is intended for use with pre-recorded, not dynamic media. However, one option would be just extend the current definition and say that when used with dynamic media it is used per this draft. I don't really see any harm, especially given that no one seems to be using it that way. From nobody Fri Apr 10 10:36:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C67A1A89F9 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:36:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oIolWmdsPKdy for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C9EB1A8A05 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so3674685igb.0 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:35:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KMpit4ZKNbD9xtgqAaghh3XMgwIF4nW+afI6W5SHWcI=; b=fxmtmTp5xbxecEmI21CPtd0mlTtSiPLJfJe9k7ePSO1+M9fb2HB7d18Qvhx9h5YO49 mubFq6PPd44IONCjO3xXMwwT/TAkbjpILP4rNh4d2zNp5hLTGogb+NKM3fJmNnWwiYwV PLjv15v6yRNXR/hh/zHrRnlugnbBwg2JxvFdeLnRRVWf+BAUcd70Umbu0H4tiQ87UEUT vKgxc5NsKAFeu1AxmqOA7CgNpmXUg+s7G5vYxWrVo6KmOPTjh/szj9/oGCVYKx+3Zmbc IVIMS8msdjocMAzo4W8mUUJFepLRYff34SM2uXvggDj7rTiWjxyKY013DdKtj2Z8lyHV oAWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.40.2 with SMTP id o2mr4546431ioo.68.1428687358521; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.173.134 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:35:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:35:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WFlxtbMSXbKmd8qgQY4ChNy_fYk Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Randall Gellens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:36:00 -0000 Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting in Dallas? Barry On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens wrote: > At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > >> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between the mail >>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not saying it's >>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>> >>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality in the >>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on why >>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do you think >>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language tags? Do >>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol development >>>> community? >>> >>> >>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>> >>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion (namely the >>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other comment >>> (quoted above)? >> >> >> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two things. > > > There are some people who are only interested in one of the two areas, while > others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are needed > for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve one of > the two problems. > > The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are aspects of the > basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use different > languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I see some > benefit and no harm. > > -- > Randall Gellens > Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only > -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- > The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which > there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell > > > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim From nobody Sun Apr 12 01:18:11 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01651A9168 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6opee5tro8Dg for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6030A1A9162 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1428826682; x=1460362682; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to: cc:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:importance; bh=QO0qPvG7FYNWXueDw/ff9mftMAB6at9wUxu5Aq25mfY=; b=LJ8KZ+Jbs1sMzINUAkeQu2sJA1+cwZDfnJHonTzvHBbZmVWVspSzZmg8 1EXYyaayV8AOciWpf/G5uTcYMLJdswJvkHYGyeDmXLHaCalSOrWU2DEee G6yFLRydZrBE4T7VNdlB0ezXWi8MeSS8ZWc+mF/0ytTNWgB3+H65zcCBT M=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7768"; a="205146292" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Apr 2015 01:18:01 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,564,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="860041370" Received: from ocean.qualcomm.com ([10.53.76.71]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2015 01:17:02 -0700 Received: from 10.64.195.56 (SquirrelMail authenticated user randy) by ocean.qualcomm.com with HTTP; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:17:55 -0700 Message-ID: <53a449a073df92d642b95b2d1d6f08e4.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:17:55 -0700 From: "Randall Gellens" To: "Barry Leiba" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randall Gellens List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:18:06 -0000 I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My recollection of the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you expecting a revised proposed charter? > Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting in > Dallas? > > Barry > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens > wrote: >> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> >>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> >>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between the >>>>> mail >>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not saying >>>>> it's >>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>> >>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality in >>>>> the >>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on why >>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do you >>>>> think >>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language tags? >>>>> Do >>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>> development >>>>> community? >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>> >>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion (namely >>>> the >>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other comment >>>> (quoted above)? >>> >>> >>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two things. >> >> >> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two areas, >> while >> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >> needed >> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve one >> of >> the two problems. >> >> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are aspects of >> the >> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >> different >> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I see some >> benefit and no harm. >> >> -- >> Randall Gellens >> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only >> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing list >> SLIM@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim > From nobody Sun Apr 12 01:18:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B77D1A9162 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 683vuG-IHk_z for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A9CD1A9163 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1428826683; x=1460362683; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to: cc:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:importance; bh=QO0qPvG7FYNWXueDw/ff9mftMAB6at9wUxu5Aq25mfY=; b=RGYMrNXz2tsZO0jOtmK5FbGSyThLeQm0yHoT7Oio5Mf9J1/ldlrCtpe+ S7Ut2kxiiV3uG7XTRWCJt8unigmOLdLUJLDrkHRTMoLRqe6H8TosEglyr ouinbfjwGdJsrhAAe0MTP6L2NTZk+wqd4Hf1rAX0WKbGy6pSzual8F+Fi M=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7768"; a="86786310" Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Apr 2015 01:18:02 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,564,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="946450661" Received: from plus.qualcomm.com ([10.52.255.8]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Apr 2015 01:18:03 -0700 Received: from Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com (ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com [172.30.48.19]) by plus.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id t3C8I1NK006037; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:01 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,564,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="860041377" Received: from ocean.qualcomm.com ([10.53.76.71]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2015 01:18:01 -0700 Received: from 10.64.195.56 (SquirrelMail authenticated user randy) by ocean.qualcomm.com with HTTP; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:01 -0700 Message-ID: <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:01 -0700 From: "Randall Gellens" To: "Barry Leiba" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randall Gellens List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:18:09 -0000 I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My recollection of the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you expecting a revised proposed charter? > Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting in > Dallas? > > Barry > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens > wrote: >> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> >>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> >>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between the >>>>> mail >>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not saying >>>>> it's >>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>> >>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality in >>>>> the >>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on why >>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do you >>>>> think >>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language tags? >>>>> Do >>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>> development >>>>> community? >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>> >>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion (namely >>>> the >>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other comment >>>> (quoted above)? >>> >>> >>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two things. >> >> >> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two areas, >> while >> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >> needed >> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve one >> of >> the two problems. >> >> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are aspects of >> the >> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >> different >> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I see some >> benefit and no harm. >> >> -- >> Randall Gellens >> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only >> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing list >> SLIM@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim > From nobody Sun Apr 12 01:18:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D102E1A9163 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HxgL2fCHaG3p for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E69B1A9162 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1428826732; x=1460362732; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to: cc:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:importance; bh=QO0qPvG7FYNWXueDw/ff9mftMAB6at9wUxu5Aq25mfY=; b=KjQaG1YlD+wxQFV2mSb+vIM8fRlvQLx9nOp3EKS0AadpkkPY41hGt+WG kaRDFO3+gcQ6TkZ2Oc7jCl7GHhgZm2SGbTBGb9niL0chlaqcoIL61hwOd sVZfbnkGu7w/cML5AiO+d8VFN6zDJXCGcDT+IqaGGkWPJzXCYirxoWJiC s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7768"; a="112897781" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Apr 2015 01:18:40 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,564,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="860041500" Received: from plus.qualcomm.com ([10.52.255.8]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Apr 2015 01:18:39 -0700 Received: from Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com (ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com [172.30.48.18]) by plus.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id t3C8IdCA006046; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:39 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,564,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="885158618" Received: from ocean.qualcomm.com ([10.53.76.71]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2015 01:18:02 -0700 Received: from 10.64.195.56 (SquirrelMail authenticated user randy) by ocean.qualcomm.com with HTTP; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:39 -0700 Message-ID: <03a35216136bee9866a359a7709e6dca.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:18:39 -0700 From: "Randall Gellens" To: "Barry Leiba" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randall Gellens List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:18:54 -0000 I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My recollection of the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you expecting a revised proposed charter? > Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting in > Dallas? > > Barry > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens > wrote: >> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> >>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> >>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between the >>>>> mail >>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not saying >>>>> it's >>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>> >>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality in >>>>> the >>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on why >>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do you >>>>> think >>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language tags? >>>>> Do >>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>> development >>>>> community? >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>> >>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion (namely >>>> the >>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other comment >>>> (quoted above)? >>> >>> >>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two things. >> >> >> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two areas, >> while >> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >> needed >> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve one >> of >> the two problems. >> >> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are aspects of >> the >> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >> different >> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I see some >> benefit and no harm. >> >> -- >> Randall Gellens >> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only >> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing list >> SLIM@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim > From nobody Sun Apr 12 09:00:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AF91A015F for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:00:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TkmpHl1m5ITR for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28F481A00DF for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3CG0OsF077759 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:00:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Randall Gellens" Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:00:24 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, Barry Leiba , Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 12 Apr 2015 16:00:41 -0000 I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input to such a BOF. Thanks! Ben. On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: > I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My recollection > of > the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you > expecting a > revised proposed charter? > >> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting in >> Dallas? >> >> Barry >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >> wrote: >>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between the >>>>>> mail >>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not saying >>>>>> it's >>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>> >>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality in >>>>>> the >>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>> why >>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do you >>>>>> think >>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>> tags? >>>>>> Do >>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>> development >>>>>> community? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>> >>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>> (namely >>>>> the >>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>> comment >>>>> (quoted above)? >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>> things. >>> >>> >>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>> areas, >>> while >>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>> needed >>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>> one >>> of >>> the two problems. >>> >>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>> aspects of >>> the >>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>> different >>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I see >>> some >>> benefit and no harm. >>> >>> -- >>> Randall Gellens >>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>> only >>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SLIM mailing list >>> SLIM@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >> > > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim From nobody Mon Apr 13 00:40:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5330C1A1B27 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:39:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jinx1HdcfEnH for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3FBB1A1AA3 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:39:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1428910795; x=1460446795; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to: cc:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:importance; bh=JaqI/bo/LJ2DPRZlFq24bWmlf++RKnNcX6iH8Qbc/8Q=; b=RoI5a4wf8+sRvlzkreTovwyVd8p7pNYWxulhjsic06i8xGjZi9CrC7hR FZBcN/xjVDKoOnXdRp5qDEb0IaH/dtaJv5O8ZPHjD9hpdeloT2noO6I8M flUCwUTHlfFVM+QmxDN/37AdvTMk5gY/bLJHrGOX1dbQNfF9hOxCrMylO k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7769"; a="205245757" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Apr 2015 00:39:54 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,568,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="893443403" Received: from plus.qualcomm.com ([10.52.255.8]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Apr 2015 00:39:54 -0700 Received: from Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com (ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com [172.30.46.17]) by plus.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id t3D7drhW006516; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:39:54 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,568,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="893443399" Received: from ocean.qualcomm.com ([10.53.76.71]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2015 00:39:53 -0700 Received: from 10.64.195.186 (SquirrelMail authenticated user randy) by ocean.qualcomm.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:39:53 -0700 Message-ID: <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:39:53 -0700 From: "Randall Gellens" To: "Ben Campbell" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, Barry Leiba , Randall Gellens , Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randall Gellens List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 07:39:59 -0000 > I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be > useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input to > such a BOF. Hi Ben, In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered advantages and none offered any real disadvantages. Someone mentioned that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested in one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a problem (it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not the case here). We already know that some participants are interested in both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one are able to offer constructive suggestions for the other. So, I don't see any reason to not move forward. If there are other changes you'd like to see, we can talk about them. > > On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: > >> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My recollection >> of >> the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you >> expecting a >> revised proposed charter? >> >>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting in >>> Dallas? >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >>> wrote: >>>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between the >>>>>>> mail >>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not saying >>>>>>> it's >>>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>>> why >>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do you >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>>> tags? >>>>>>> Do >>>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>>> development >>>>>>> community? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>>> >>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>>> (namely >>>>>> the >>>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>>> comment >>>>>> (quoted above)? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>>> things. >>>> >>>> >>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>>> areas, >>>> while >>>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>>> needed >>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>>> one >>>> of >>>> the two problems. >>>> >>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>>> aspects of >>>> the >>>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>>> different >>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I see >>>> some >>>> benefit and no harm. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Randall Gellens >>>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>>> only >>>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SLIM mailing list >>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing list >> SLIM@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim > From nobody Tue Apr 14 07:37:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123BD1AC3C8 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:37:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: 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 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysdGXAg4VBc7 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA621AC430 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3EEb7wo084170 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:37:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Randall Gellens" Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:37:07 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, Barry Leiba , Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:37:39 -0000 On 13 Apr 2015, at 2:39, Randall Gellens wrote: >> I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be >> useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input >> to >> such a BOF. > > Hi Ben, > > In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both > drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered > advantages and none offered any real disadvantages. Someone mentioned > that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested > in > one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a > problem > (it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not > the > case here). I recall mentioning a couple: -- There is controversy about the real-time solution. This can get in the way of getting less controversial deliverables done. (Someone mentioned there is also controversy on the non-real-time solution. IMO, that makes things worse, not better.) -- Experience has shown that keeping working group scopes as small as reasonably possible increases the odds of success. Putting two separate problems together in the same working group runs counter to that, so my personal preference is to avoid it unless the connection between the items is clear. However, [see next comment] > We already know that some participants are interested in > both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one > are > able to offer constructive suggestions for the other. So, I don't see > any > reason to not move forward. If there are other changes you'd like to > see, > we can talk about them. I don't object to moving forward with a combined proposal for the virtual BoF. We can see what people have to say about the combination in the BoF. (I have had multiple people express skepticism about the combination [I think even some on the SLIM list], but I don't know if they will attend.) > > >> >> On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: >> >>> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My >>> recollection >>> of >>> the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you >>> expecting a >>> revised proposed charter? >>> >>>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting >>>> in >>>> Dallas? >>>> >>>> Barry >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >>>> wrote: >>>>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not >>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>>>> tags? >>>>>>>> Do >>>>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>> community? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>>>> (namely >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>>>> comment >>>>>>> (quoted above)? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>>>> areas, >>>>> while >>>>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>>>> needed >>>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>>>> one >>>>> of >>>>> the two problems. >>>>> >>>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>>>> aspects of >>>>> the >>>>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>>>> different >>>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I >>>>> see >>>>> some >>>>> benefit and no harm. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Randall Gellens >>>>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>>>> only >>>>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>>>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>>>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SLIM mailing list >>> SLIM@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >> From nobody Tue Apr 14 19:16:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0387D1B30B0 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:16:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0xWUJljo5BZ7 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AFC51B30AD for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:16:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1429064162; x=1460600162; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to: cc:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:importance; bh=E/oXL6Z07aDtUSdhdnoGKxom9yJ8NbepAvGUaARSMCo=; b=zN8yBBDfeG1NpY8yRndlYQDPCx4nzd5jPjgG2AbGzZL8G2oi3DrMpHMe G2eJgAMI3CLGiiHGLMmRhJ+ivQLsIw9hmGncHsUrrJfGMvvn+PtdiIX+H jAxX8KQ0CIbGTm6xYwD3CvKlYm8MYzRlGEw/CQemOJWxO61FTfVh674gV U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7771"; a="86961920" Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Apr 2015 19:16:01 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,579,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="887407800" Received: from plus.qualcomm.com ([10.52.255.8]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Apr 2015 19:16:01 -0700 Received: from Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com (ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com [172.30.48.19]) by plus.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id t3F2FxR0021354; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:16:00 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,579,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="862209423" Received: from ocean.qualcomm.com ([10.53.76.71]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 19:15:57 -0700 Received: from 10.64.203.100 (SquirrelMail authenticated user randy) by ocean.qualcomm.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:15:58 -0700 Message-ID: <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:15:58 -0700 From: "Randall Gellens" To: "Ben Campbell" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, Barry Leiba , Randall Gellens , Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randall Gellens List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 02:16:05 -0000 > On 13 Apr 2015, at 2:39, Randall Gellens wrote: > >>> I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be >>> useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input >>> to >>> such a BOF. >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both >> drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered >> advantages and none offered any real disadvantages. Someone mentioned >> that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested >> in >> one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a >> problem >> (it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not >> the >> case here). > > I recall mentioning a couple: > > -- There is controversy about the real-time solution. This can get in > the way of getting less controversial deliverables done. (Someone > mentioned there is also controversy on the non-real-time solution. IMO, > that makes things worse, not better.) > > -- Experience has shown that keeping working group scopes as small as > reasonably possible increases the odds of success. Putting two separate > problems together in the same working group runs counter to that, so my > personal preference is to avoid it unless the connection between the > items is clear. > > However, [see next comment] > >> We already know that some participants are interested in >> both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one >> are >> able to offer constructive suggestions for the other. So, I don't see >> any >> reason to not move forward. If there are other changes you'd like to >> see, >> we can talk about them. > > I don't object to moving forward with a combined proposal for the > virtual BoF. We can see what people have to say about the combination in > the BoF. > > (I have had multiple people express skepticism about the combination [I > think even some on the SLIM list], but I don't know if they will > attend.) Hi Ben, Being skeptical of the advantages is fine; I still haven't seen any reason why doing both will be an actual problem. Given how small the two drafts are, I don't see that controversy over one will hinder the other. Both drafts have attracted some controversy, but certainly the real-time one has more. >>> On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: >>> >>>> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My >>>> recollection >>>> of >>>> the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you >>>> expecting a >>>> revised proposed charter? >>>> >>>>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting >>>>> in >>>>> Dallas? >>>>> >>>>> Barry >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not >>>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>>>>> tags? >>>>>>>>> Do >>>>>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>> community? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>>>>> (namely >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>>>>> comment >>>>>>>> (quoted above)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>>>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>>>>> things. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>>>>> areas, >>>>>> while >>>>>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>>>>> needed >>>>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>>>>> one >>>>>> of >>>>>> the two problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>>>>> aspects of >>>>>> the >>>>>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>>>>> different >>>>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I >>>>>> see >>>>>> some >>>>>> benefit and no harm. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Randall Gellens >>>>>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>>>>> only >>>>>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>>>>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>>>>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SLIM mailing list >>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>> > From nobody Tue Apr 14 22:10:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984041B2C7C for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E5BjqFK9AlLx for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bin-vsp-out-03.atm.binero.net (vsp-unauthed01.binero.net [195.74.38.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2147C1B2C7B for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:10:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Halon-ID: b7fadf89-e32d-11e4-9965-0050569116f7 Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se Received: from [192.168.2.42] (unknown [77.53.231.174]) by bin-vsp-out-03.atm.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:10:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <552DF2BB.3050003@omnitor.se> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:10:19 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=F6m?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: slim@ietf.org References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:10:29 -0000 Randall Gellens skrev den 2015-04-15 04:15: >> On 13 Apr 2015, at 2:39, Randall Gellens wrote: >> >>>> I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be >>>> useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input >>>> to >>>> such a BOF. >>> Hi Ben, >>> >>> In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both >>> drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered >>> advantages and none offered any real disadvantages. Someone mentioned >>> that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested >>> in >>> one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a >>> problem >>> (it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not >>> the >>> case here). >> I recall mentioning a couple: >> >> -- There is controversy about the real-time solution. This can get in >> the way of getting less controversial deliverables done. (Someone >> mentioned there is also controversy on the non-real-time solution. IMO, >> that makes things worse, not better.) >> >> -- Experience has shown that keeping working group scopes as small as >> reasonably possible increases the odds of success. Putting two separate >> problems together in the same working group runs counter to that, so my >> personal preference is to avoid it unless the connection between the >> items is clear. >> >> However, [see next comment] >> >>> We already know that some participants are interested in >>> both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one >>> are >>> able to offer constructive suggestions for the other. So, I don't see >>> any >>> reason to not move forward. If there are other changes you'd like to >>> see, >>> we can talk about them. >> I don't object to moving forward with a combined proposal for the >> virtual BoF. We can see what people have to say about the combination in >> the BoF. >> >> (I have had multiple people express skepticism about the combination [I >> think even some on the SLIM list], but I don't know if they will >> attend.) > > Hi Ben, > > Being skeptical of the advantages is fine; I still haven't seen any reason > why doing both will be an actual problem. Given how small the two drafts > are, I don't see that controversy over one will hinder the other. Both > drafts have attracted some controversy, but certainly the real-time one > has more. Both has the need to clarify how the language tags can be used so that it is evident what modality they indicate. An e-mailed video may contain a view of a talking person with audio of the speech embedded in an MPEG4 coding, and an embedded subtitle translation to another language as well as a box overlay with a sign language translation. Then you would like to be able to clearly tell with separate language tags that it contains all these languages and modalities. Currently sign languages have their own language tags where it is implicit that the medium is video, while for expressing language in text vs voice vs view of a talking person all embedded in video, there does not seem to exist any agreed separated coding. The real-time side has the same need. The core of that need should probably be solved in a group for definition of language tag syntax, but SLIM can work on two applications of it. (CLUE would have the same need, have they solved it?) > > > >>>> On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My >>>>> recollection >>>>> of >>>>> the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you >>>>> expecting a >>>>> revised proposed charter? >>>>> >>>>>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting >>>>>> in >>>>>> Dallas? >>>>>> >>>>>> Barry >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not >>>>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>>>>>> tags? >>>>>>>>>> Do >>>>>>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> community? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>>>>>> (namely >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>>>>>> comment >>>>>>>>> (quoted above)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>>>>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>>>>>> areas, >>>>>>> while >>>>>>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>>>>>> needed >>>>>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the two problems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>>>>>> aspects of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I >>>>>>> see >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> benefit and no harm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Randall Gellens >>>>>>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>>>>>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>>>>>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim -- ----------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström Omnitor gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se +46 708 204 288