Re: [MEDIACTRL] AD review:draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-controlpackage-09

Gary,

This is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for - I'm not saying 
there's a problem, I'm just saying that we forwarded two specs to Robert 
that deal with partial failures differently, and I want to make sure that we 
did that on purpose!

Do others see it the same way?

Thanks,

Spencer

> That feels right to me.
>
> I can imagine with IVR a prompt & collect routine of some length going
> on where there's a problem part way through (MS software or subsystem
> hiccup or whatever) and MS can't complete. Can't expect the MS to know
> that ahead of time, and it can't undo.
>
> With MIXER, I can't imagine a scenario, practically, where there would
> be a problem in the middle of doing something. (Not sure there really is
> much of a middle with MIXER operations.)
>
> cheers,
>
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mediactrl-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mediactrl-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:07 PM
> To: Scott McGlashan; Lorenzo Miniero
> Cc: draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package@tools.ietf.org;
> mediactrl@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] AD review:
> draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-controlpackage-09
>
> Hi, Scott,
>
> Thanks for taking care of this - Robert has just launched the control
> framework, the IVR package, and the MIXER package for IETF Last Call.
>
> This is a big step forward (and I look forward to the next big step,
> when
> the documents are approved for publication as Proposed Standards ;-)
>
> To the group,
>
> Scott has made a one-sentence change in the draft that I agree with (and
> I
> also agree with Robert that we had to say SOMETHING about whether
> requests
> can "partially fail", whether the answer was "yes" or "no"), but I need
> to
> make sure the working group agrees with it. The diff pops out for you at
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-pa
> ckage-10.
>
> So, what we have is a statement in one control package, but we do not
> require atomicity for control packages in general - right?
>
> For ease of reference in this thread, here's what MIXER-10 says:
>
>   If the
>   MS is not able to process the request and carry out the mixer
>   operation (in whole or in part), then the request has failed: the MS
>   MUST ensure that no part of the requested mixer operaton is carried
>   out, and the MS MUST indicate the class of failure using an
>   appropriate 4xx response code.
>
> And here's what IVR-07 says, in roughly the same place:
>
>   If the
>   MS is not able to process the request and carry out the dialog
>   operation, the request has failed and the MS MUST indicate the class
>   of failure using an appropriate 4xx response code.
>
> Do we have this right? Please let us know on-list!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Scott McGlashan" <Scott.McGlashan@hp.com>
> To: "Lorenzo Miniero" <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
> Cc: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>; "Robert Sparks"
> <rjsparks@nostrum.com>; <mediactrl@ietf.org>;
> <draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package@tools.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] AD review: draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control
> package-09
>
>
> I've updated the mixer draft with a clarification along the lines
> Lorenzo
> suggested. Hopefully it is clearer now - if a operation fails in part,
> then
> the MS ensures that no part of the operation is carried out.
>
> thanks
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl 