Selection of Language for Internet Media
|Document||Charter||Selection of Language for Internet Media WG (slim)|
|Title||Selection of Language for Internet Media|
|IESG||Responsible AD||Alexey Melnikov|
|Charter edit AD||Alexey Melnikov|
|Send notices to||(None)|
A mutually comprehensible language is helpful for human communication. This is true across a range of circumstances and environments. In general, the problem is most acute in situations where there is not a clear choice for a single language, such as environments lacking contextual or out-of-band information regarding the identity of the parties and the language to be used. The group will address two specific cases that most urgently need a technical solution: One problem space is non-real-time communication, specifically email for one-to-many or where the set of recipients is dynamic or different recipients require different languages; the other is real-time communication, specifically emergency calling, preferably also useful for other cases where the parties may not know each other personally or where one party wishes to accommodate people with varying language and media needs. In the real-time communication case, language and media are intrinsically linked, for example, signed languages require a video media. While the two use cases are in different contexts (real time and non-real-time), the fundamental goal is the same: to enable selection of the best-fit language(s) for a specific situation. Some of the details will also be in common across the cases, e.g., the language tags. Having a single WG address both cases makes it clear that these are two aspects of the same basic problem. A single WG also makes it easier to maximize similarities and avoid unnecessary fragmentation of the solutions and facilitates broader review. The group will start by producing specifications for email and for real-time communications. In the email case, the group will determine a MIME based solution (based on draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent) that enables a single email message to contain multiple language versions of the content, with provisions to help clients select a best-fit version. In the real-time communication case, the group will produce a specification (based on draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language) enabling negotiation of a human language per media stream. The specification must be suitable for use in emergency communications as specified in RFC 6443 and RFC 6881 (which use SIP and SDP to negotiate media); it is desirable to also be suitable for use in non-emergency real-time communications that share the same call set-up and media negotiation protocols. The mechanism will permit the caller's media and language needs and preferences to be matched against what the called party is able to provide. Alternatives such as doing the media negotiation in SIP have been explored in the past and are out of scope (although SIP-based mechanisms may be introduced when routing considerations are addressed). The group's initial focus will not be on supporting language-based call routing decisions. Once the initial work is sufficiently progressed, the group may address call routing, with the timing at the judgment of the chairs. Recognizing that complex solutions are significantly less likely to see widespread deployment, the group will solve the most common use cases and avoid adding complexity to solve edge or less-common cases. By adding language to the existing media negotiation mechanism as used in RFC 6443 and RFC 6881, the group can meet the basic use cases with minimal added complexity and be able to enhance later for additional use cases as needed.