Selection of Language for Internet Media
charter-ietf-slim-01

[Ballot block]

I wonder if the security and privacy considerations associated
with email and WebRTC are so totally different that it might really
be better to handle language separately for each.

I'm also a bit leery of emergency calls being used to justify
handling language in a way that exposes privacy unnecessarily.
(I don't mean that language preference is highly sensitive,
as it's usually not, but I think there is a meme where emergency
services are used to justify doing all sorts of stuff without
security, so the call is more likely to get through.)

The first bit was a comment I made back in July and I don't
think I saw any response. (But I may have forgotten.)

We can chat about it on the call.

[Ballot comment]
I would suggest being slightly more specific on the call routing aspect:

OLD
The group's initial focus will not be on call routing.

NEW
The group's initial focus will not be on supporting language-based call routing decisions.

Changed charter milestone "Submit "Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time Communications" to the IESG (based on draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language)", set due date to March 2016 from February 2016

[Ballot comment]

I also concur with Barry's Block. However I'm not sure we want to ballot
on it before that issue is resolved as it's fairly fundamental so I'd be more
comfortable if we punted on this for now until that scoping discussion is
done. For example, I think the security and privacy considerations associated
with email and WebRTC are totally different so it might really be better to
handle 'em separately.

Note that we do have the opportunity to put this on the Sunday agenda in
Prague, so punting on it for now doesn't have to mean waiting too long
for a WG to be formed. And if those interested cannot manage to reach
consensus on a WG scope before Prague, then that probably indicates that
there's a problem there such that forming a WG now would be a bad plan.

So, this isn't an additional block, but I'd prefer we not ballot today as this
a fundamental scope issue is still being discussed.

We can chat about it on the call.

[Ballot comment]
From the milestones, I see that you want to submit "Multiple Language Content Type" to the IESG (based on draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent)"
If this draft is a compulsory starting point, I would make it clear in the charter, similarly to "In the real-time communication case, the group will produce a specification
based on draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language". Simply a question of consistency.

[Ballot block]
We should go ahead and ballot on this, but I think we're going to hold off on approval until we have a bit more discussion about whether keeping email/web and SIP use cases together makes sense.

[Ballot comment]
We should go ahead and ballot on this, but I think we're going to hold off on approval until we have a bit more discussion about whether keeping email/web and SIP use cases together makes sense.