[Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-engelsma-dmsp-02.txt

"Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678" <Jonathan.Engelsma@motorola.com> Fri, 01 December 2006 16:17 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqB56-0005IN-Oi; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:17:44 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqB56-0005IB-0Z for dmsp@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:17:44 -0500
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqB54-0003uq-Ou for dmsp@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:17:43 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Jonathan.Engelsma@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1164989861!11665880!1
X-StarScan-Version:; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 19446 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2006 16:17:41 -0000
Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) ( by server-10.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2006 16:17:41 -0000
Received: from az33exr04.mot.com (az33exr04.mot.com []) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id kB1GHedr009266 for <dmsp@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:17:40 -0700 (MST)
Received: from de01exm69.ds.mot.com (de01exm69.am.mot.com []) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id kB1GHdDC027718 for <dmsp@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:17:40 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:17:38 -0500
Message-ID: <6806C66D71ED9241BAECC0478173B71F01072D05@de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
Thread-Topic: clarifications requested in draft-engelsma-dmsp-02.txt
thread-index: AccVZDgtYZVvWjV7Rvy588x+cem5Ew==
From: "Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678" <Jonathan.Engelsma@motorola.com>
To: <dmsp@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Subject: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-engelsma-dmsp-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dmsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Multimodal Synchronization Protocol <dmsp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp>, <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dmsp>
List-Post: <mailto:dmsp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp>, <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dmsp-bounces@ietf.org

We're working on another revision of the dmsp spec that we hope to
complete in the next few days.  Here is a summary of some of the areas
that need correction/clarification in the current version.  Please
forward any comments you have on these or other areas 
While working on a C++ implementation of the client state machine, Jim
Ferrans pointed out the following items that need attention:
Item 1 -  Section VXML Start Signal Message - currently only
supports a dialog url.  In certain situations it may be desirable for
the client application to be completely self contained, and not
dependent on a network-based application server.  The VXML Start message
should be able to include actual VoiceXML content instead of an url.  

Comments: There are a couple of possiblities.  1) Add a flag to the
message that indicates whether the string in the Dialog URL field is an
URL or VoiceXML content.  2) Leave the message as it is, and let the VUA
infer from the value of Dialog URL itself, what it is.  For example, if
the string begins with "<?xml" treat it as VoiceXML content, otherwise
confirm it's a fully qualified URL.  Any preferences one way or the

Item 2 - Section - Originally, the Motorola
implementation of the server state machine, only reported the slots
corresponding to VoiceXML form items that have changed value during a
given recognition cycle are reflected in the recognition result
messages.  The motivation for this approach was to minimize message
size.  However, application developers have argued convincingly that
this is not helpful, and its best for the recognition result to fully
represent what the user actually said...

Comments: We should add wording in these sections to clarify this
situation.  Any additional or contrary thoughts from other server

In addition to these issues Jim raised, there were a couple of other
minor issues reported that need clarification/correction:

Item 3: Table 11 - The 7th field in the table "Event Type" is actually a
typo and will be eliminated in the next revision.

Item 4: Section, Table 21.  The 5th field listed in the table
"Fields" is meant to be an array of strings, NOT an array of Fields
values as defined in Table 7.  Hence the reference "see Table 7" in the
Value column in Table 21 is incorrect.  This will be updated in the next

Let us know if there are any further comments on these items, and if you
have any addition issues that are not addressed here.


Dmsp mailing list