Re: [MEDIACTRL] ISSUE 3 - IVR Package - <variable>/<variabletype> interoperability

I like to see option # 2 as well.

--victor

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM, McGlashan, Scott <scott.mcglashan@hp.com>wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> As part of our IESG review of the IVR package the following issues have
> been identified:
>
> (a) 4.3.1.1.1.  <variable>
>
>   A <variable> element has the following attributes:
>
>   value:  specifies the string to be rendered.  A valid value is a
>      string (see Section 4.6.6).  The attribute is mandatory.
>
>   type:  specifies the type to use for rendering.  A valid value is a
>      string (see Section 4.6.6).  The attribute is mandatory.
>
>   format:  specifies format information to use in conjunction with the
>      type for the rendering.  A valid value is a string (see
>      Section 4.6.6).  The attribute is optional.  There is no default
>      value.
>
>  Are these defined somewhere in more details?
>
>   For example, the MS could support <variable> type/format combinations
>   such as:
>
>  Is this the complete list?
>
>
> (b) Please clarify how implementations will achieve interoperability with
> regard to the <variable> element, given that there are no registries or
> specification for the 'type' and 'format' attributes. This applies also to
> the <variabletype> element.
>
>
> We need some input from the mailing list on how we should proceed with this
> one: some options
>
> 1. Strengthen our descriptions of date, time and digits format/types. Limit
> interoperability requirements to these 3 types.
>
> 2. As 1), but introduce registry for adding additional types.
>
> 3. Delete the <variable> and <variabletype> elements.
>
>
> I would like WG input on these options. My preference is for option 2 (or
> option 1 as 2nd choice).
>
> Thanks
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
>