Subject: [Slim] [slim] #5 (negotiating-human-language): Improve paragraph on relay services in section 1. Introduction.

From: "slim issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 20:22:40 -0000

#5: Improve paragraph on relay services in section 1. Introduction.

 In section 1, Introduction, there is a paragraph about relay services. It
 is limited to how most relay services function today, but should instead
 be open for the changes and improvements that are possible when the draft
 is applied.

 Current text:
 _____________________________________
    Regarding relay services, in the case of an emergency call requiring
    sign language such as ASL, there are two common approaches: the
    caller initiates the call to a relay center, or the caller places the
    call to emergency services (e.g., 911 in the U.S. or 112 in Europe).
    (In a variant of the second case, the voice service provider invokes
    a relay service as well as emergency services.)  In the former case,
    the language need is ancillary and supplemental.  In the non-variant
    second case, the ESInet and/or PSAP may take the need for sign
    language into account and bridge in a relay center.  In this case,
    the ESInet and PSAP have all the standard information available (such
    as location) but are able to bridge the relay sooner in the call
    processing.
 ____________________________________________________
 Proposed modified text.
 ----------------------------------------------------------
 Regarding relay services, in the case of an emergency call requiring
 sign language, there are three common approaches: 1) the caller is
 customer of a relay service which intercepts all calls and in turn
 initiates the call to a relay service, 2) the caller is customer of a
 general service provider and places the call to emergency services (e.g.,
 911 in the U.S. or 112 in Europe), or 3) the caller is customer of a
 service provider which supports invocation of relay services when found
 needed in general calls as well as emergency service calls.
  In the first case the language need can be used by the relay service to
 allocate an interpreter with suitable competence, while in many cases the
 relay service is only serving one language/modality combination and the
 provided language information is then ancillary and supplemental.  In the
 second case, the ESInet and/or PSAP may take the need for a specific sign
 language into account and bridge in a relay service. In this case, the
 ESInet and PSAP have all the standard information available (such as
 location) and are able to bridge the required relay early into the call.
 In the third case, the service provider can base the decision on if a
 relay service is needed in the call on the language and modality
 information. The need for language and modality indication in these cases
 becomes extra apparent when dealing with emergency calls by visitors to
 regions with other default languages than the caller's.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-slim-
  [email-masked]        |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement              |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                    |  Milestone:
Component:  negotiating-human-       |    Version:
  language                           |   Keywords:  relay services
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/slim/trac/ticket/5>
slim <https://tools.ietf.org/slim/>