From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: slim WG <slim@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Review: Selection of Language for Internet Media (slim)
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications and
Real-Time Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The
following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational
purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg
at ietf.org) by 2015-07-06.
Selection of Language for Internet Media (slim)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed WG
Assigned Area Director:
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Mailing list
Address: slim@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/
Charter:
Description of Working Group:
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 produce two documents, one for email, and one for
real-time communications.
In the email case, the group will determine a MIME based solution 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. The mechanism will permit resources (e.g.,
translation, relay, media) to be allocated or engaged as early as
possible in the call set-up or for the call to be routed or handled
specially (e.g., routed to a resource able to provide a needed language
and/or media). Alternatives such as doing the negotiation in SIP have
been thoroughly explored in the past and are out of scope (although the
scope might be extended after the SDP mechanism has been advanced).
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.
Milestones:
Oct 2015 - Submit "Multiple Language Content Type" to the IESG (based
on draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent)
Feb 2016 - Submit "Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time
Communications" to the IESG (based on
draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language)
WG action announcement
WG Action Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>,
<slim-chairs@ietf.org>,
<slim@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Action: Formed Selection of Language for Internet Media (slim)
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applications and
Real-Time Area. For additional information please contact the Area
Directors or the WG Chairs.
Selection of Language for Internet Media (slim)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed WG
Chairs:
Bernard Aboba <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>
N Rooney <nrooney@gsma.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Mailing list
Address: slim@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/
Charter:
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.
Milestones:
Nov 2015 - Submit "Multiple Language Content Type" to the IESG (based
on draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent)
Mar 2016 - Submit "Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time
Communications" to the IESG (based on
draft-gellens-slim-negotiating-human-language)