RE: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-engelsma-dmsp-02.txt
"Ferrans James-JFERRAN1" <James.Ferrans@motorola.com> Fri, 01 December 2006 21:34 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqG1V-0005wR-Ns; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:34:21 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqG1V-0005wK-7T for dmsp@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:34:21 -0500
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqG1T-0004vA-Tx for dmsp@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:34:21 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: James.Ferrans@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1165008858!15528783!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.101]
Received: (qmail 13183 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2006 21:34:19 -0000
Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (144.189.100.101) by server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2006 21:34:19 -0000
Received: from az33exr03.mot.com (az33exr03.mot.com [10.64.251.233]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id kB1LYIJu011930 for <dmsp@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:34:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from de01exm66.ds.mot.com (de01exm66.am.mot.com [10.176.8.17]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id kB1LYHXc005608 for <dmsp@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:34:18 -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
Subject: RE: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-engelsma-dmsp-02.txt
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:34:17 -0500
Message-ID: <E230F70DA44FB143B1EF1CE5A96F605E01F3AB9A@de01exm66.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <6806C66D71ED9241BAECC0478173B71F01072D05@de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-engelsma-dmsp-02.txt
thread-index: AccVZDgtYZVvWjV7Rvy588x+cem5EwAJ+yLw
From: Ferrans James-JFERRAN1 <James.Ferrans@motorola.com>
To: dmsp@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
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
On Item 1, my preference would be to have a flag. This would enable better diagnostics if the VoiceXML content should have a missing xml line. On Item 2, the current semantics are defensible when the application is presenting a field-based interface and the user is filling them with voice utterances. The assumption here that if a value is unchanged, it's still sitting in the field and we shouldn't waste the bandwidth to resend it. But this optimization doesn't really buy us much, and in a command-and-control interface it makes less sense. For example, we recently wrote a multimodal game for a Linux phone, using its Qt GUI framework to show a collection of bouncing planets. You can grab one with the stylus and fling it around (very satisfying), and you can press the phone's PTT key and say "earth go slower", "everybody hide", "tethys jump", and so on. Under the current semantic if I say "earth slower" and "earth hide", my second utterances' "earth" is not sent back to the phone. This means the client has to do extra book-keeping, which is annoying. Jim Ferrans -----Original Message----- From: Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678 Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:18 AM To: dmsp@ietf.org Subject: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-engelsma-dmsp-02.txt All, 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 4.2.3.2 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 other? Item 2 - Section 4.2.6.7 - 4.2.6.8. 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 implementors? 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 4.2.4.9, 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 revision. Let us know if there are any further comments on these items, and if you have any addition issues that are not addressed here. Thanks, -jre _______________________________________________ Dmsp mailing list Dmsp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp _______________________________________________ Dmsp mailing list Dmsp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp
- [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-engelsma… Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678
- Re: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-enge… Chris Cross
- RE: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-enge… Ferrans James-JFERRAN1
- RE: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-enge… Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678
- RE: [Dmsp] clarifications requested in draft-enge… Chris Cross