[Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt
"Burger, Eric" <EBurger@cantata.com> Tue, 21 March 2006 01:48 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLVzC-0003Ky-RV; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLVzB-0003Kt-TQ for dmsp@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:37 -0500
Received: from mxgate1.brooktrout.com ([204.176.74.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLVzB-0007M6-LU for dmsp@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:37 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.03,112,1141621200"; d="scan'208"; a="30325915:sNHT33035688"
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: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:35 -0500
Message-ID: <330A23D8336C0346B5C1A5BB19666647027B03B6@ATLANTIS.Brooktrout.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcZLWegFSIl8r7ahSyiEz4UGx6mj5QBL3LLw
From: "Burger, Eric" <EBurger@cantata.com>
To: dmsp@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Subject: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.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
Section 3. Binary encoding - blech. Will anyone use XML if all of the normative text describes the binary encoding? Conversely, given how much easier it is to generate, parse, and debug XML, would it not be better to have the normative text use XML, and have the mapping of tags to binary values in the appendix? Seems very VoiceXML-centric, to the point it may only work with VoiceXML. Is that OK? User-Agent field in SIG_INIT: says for advertising capabilities, but it is just a string identifying the GUA. A better mechanism is to advertise capabilities. RESULT: is there any reason not to simply tunnel EMMA or NLSML? Translating the real result into a DMSP result will be error-prone and is guaranteed to not supply what the application desires. What is the use case? It is not a VoiceXML browser in the handset; that is what MRCPv2 is for. It is inconceivable that it is a network-based VoiceXML browser using a handset ASR engine; if the handset has the power to run ASR, it most likely has the power to run a VoiceXML browser. For that matter, what does the GUA do with recognition results? Is it to populate fields or to help in low-confidence situations? If the former, then it isn't worth having confidence scores - there should not be more than one value. If the latter, what does the interaction look like? I am asking, because presumably the VoiceXML interpreter will go into its "I did not get that" portion of the form. I am assuming that the goal is to allow the user to visually pick from a list of results. I was thinking that it might be more compact to have the GUA send the VUA the correct pick by reference, but that is too much state to carry around (which pick of which result are we referring to ). Thus the current model where the GUA pushes down the result string is a good way to go. SIG_VXML_START: which is not really going to be used, SIG_INIT or SIG_VXML_START? Can Dispatch: Which is more likely, a series of "can you do this?" or "what can you do?" If the latter, then it would be better to have a single OPTIONS message. If the former, then the mechanism as described is OK. Get/Set Cookies security and privacy considerations Strings: most of the strings are or will need to be Unicode. For example, arbitrary form text data can easily be non-Western. Likewise, expect International URI's to end up as Unicode or UTF-16. If every byte counts, then I would offer selecting the charset in SIG_INIT or SIG_VXML_START, with a default to UTF-8. DOM keydown, keyup, keypress events: I don't have the DOM reference handy. Do these refer to actual keyboard presses or ink strokes? If so, who would use a key-by-key protocol for a distributed, web-oriented stimulus protocol? General: Much easier to build parsers that have all of the fixed-length data items up front. Take Table 36, for example. Having the Error Code follow Correlation means I can immediately figure out the status without having to parse the Node and Location fields. I might not care, depending on the error. If I do care, there is no harm in having the Error Code up front. Need to explain how a loop could occur (Section 4.4) _______________________________________________ Dmsp mailing list Dmsp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp
- RE: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Burger, Eric
- [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Burger, Eric
- RE: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Brian Marquette
- Re: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Chris Cross
- RE: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Brian Marquette
- RE: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678
- RE: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Burger, Eric
- RE: [Dmsp] Comments on draft-engelsma-dmsp-01.txt Burger, Eric