* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Slim Status Pages

Selection of Language for Internet Media (Concluded WG)
Art Area: Francesca Palombini, Murray Kucherawy | 2015-Oct-16 — 2018-Oct-25 

2018-09-24 charter

Selection of Language for Internet Media (slim)


 Current Status: Active

     Dr. Bernard D. Aboba Ph.D. <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>

 Applications and Real-Time Area Directors:
     Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
     Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
     Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>

 Applications and Real-Time Area Advisor:
     Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: slim@ietf.org
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
     Archive:            https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/

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

  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

  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.

Goals and Milestones:
  Mar 2016 - 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)

All charter page changes, including changes to draft-list, rfc-list and milestones:

Generated from PyHt script /wg/slim/charters.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -