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

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