[Speechsc] Shepherd Write-up for MRCPv2 (updated)
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Tue, 01 November 2011 18:17 UTC
Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: speechsc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: speechsc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8892F21F8E99 for <speechsc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.662
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Ed5-QnFo5uC for <speechsc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.254.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DC221F8E92 for <speechsc@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:From:Content-Type:Subject:Date:Message-Id:Cc:To:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=tz3B6fBA2Oo0+1ExGcdg2kqjvIac8UgyshDWFcFgucAdg2W35GIJyYtEI2mII1Y2QHiEUPTNUjcwZy5/qEOcTnCj9br3LJ4HVmFP9uU8gI3YeMzM5NpQDjlGSJpNZ4f7;
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8]:60873 helo=[192.168.15.184]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1RLIsx-0004D2-9L; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:16:32 -0700
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-215-414286204"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:16:26 -0400
Message-Id: <BE362DA4-DCC0-47DC-83CE-46601D95820C@standardstrack.com>
To: Sparks Robert <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: speechsc@ietf.org
Subject: [Speechsc] Shepherd Write-up for MRCPv2 (updated)
X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group <speechsc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc>
List-Post: <mailto:speechsc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:17:16 -0000
Document: Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2) draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-26 (Standards Track) (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Eric Burger is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed this version of the document. This document is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had reviews by key WG members, as well as expert review from MMUSIC (Magnus Westerlund), GENART (Vijay Gurbani, Miguel Garcia), applications (Ted Hardie, Peter St. Andre, and Larry Massinter), RAI (Paul Kyzivat), and AVT (Roni Evan), areas. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? Reviews listed above, as well as IANA, URL, and MIME types review. The document incorporates and addresses all suggestions from Peter, Vijay, Miguel, Ted, Paul, and other IESG members, as well as expert review and comments incorporated from Roni Evan. We took most of the comments from Larry, but some where philosophical and deemed out of scope. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The largest concern the Document Shepherd has is the ITU-T is waiting on the issuance of an RFC number for this document. They are holding the publication of an H.248 document that depends on this document. There is a real risk that since MRCPv2 has been fielded and proven for two years that the ITU-T will convince the MRCP community to publish MRCPv2 as an ITU-T document. This would set a very bad precedent. Some people unfamiliar with the history of MRCPv2 may question the use of SIP for locating speech servers, asking why we do not use RTSP, BEEP, or the MEDIACTRL Framework. RFC 4313, Speech Services Control Requirements, not surprisingly, enumerates the protocol requirements for MRCP. Some of these requirements include server location and avoiding layer violations. SIP and RTSP meet the server location requirements. However, the original MRCP experience demonstrated severe protocol layering problems with RTSP. Thus, the industry demonstrated RTSP is not appropriate for use as a MRCPv2 location or substrate protocol. With respect to MEDIACTRL, MRCPv2 pre-dates the effort by almost four years. In fact, the basis of the MEDIACTRL Framework is, in fact, MRCPv2. At this time, given the years of implementation experience with MRCPv2, the industry is unlikely to accept major changes to the MRCPv2 protocol, unless there are clear benefits to those changes. There was some discussion about whether MRCPv2 should fully specify SRTP key exchange for SIP. Consensus in the work group and with the individual who brought that up (Vijay Gurbani) was to leave that to a SIP-related work group. Another issue is MRCPv2 uses set-cookie (RFC 2109) and set-cookie2 (RFC 2965). RFC 2965 obsoletes RFC 2109, but does not define set-cookie. After three years of implementation experience, the work group prefers to go with a DOWNREF to RFC 2109 rather than change all extant implementations. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus with no dissent whatsoever in the work group to publish. In addition, there are literally dozens of client, server, open source and API implementations available. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) None. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Checked with idnits 2.12.12. There are warnings about what idnits thinks is a FQDN but is really a reverse-order parameter registry (com.example.mumble). Four references need to be updated. The RFC Editor can make them. There are: ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2109 (Obsoleted by RFC 2965) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2965 (Obsoleted by RFC 6265) (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document identifies normative versus informative documents. All normative references are standards track RFCs except for nominal DOWNREF is to RFC 2483; that reference is to the text/uri-list definition. MRCPv2 uses the same definition of text/uri-list as found in the IANA media types registry. We could make this reference Informative or be silent on the reference, as the MRCPv2 reference is to the IANA registry. However, the work group believes it to be useful to have a pointer to the definition of text/uri-list for implementers to follow. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section meets the above requirements. We would like the RFC Editor to update the last paragraph in section 13.1.6, "MRCPv2 vendor-specific parameters, " to read OLD The registry contains a list of vendor-registered parameters, where each defined parameter is associated with a reference to an RFC defining it. The registry is initially empty. NEW The registry contains a list of vendor-registered parameters, where each defined parameter is associated with a contact person and includes an optional reference to the definition of the parameter, preferably an RFC. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes. ABNF checked with Bill Fenner’s tool. XML checked with XMLmind. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The MRCPv2 protocol allows client hosts to control media service resources such as speech synthesizers, recognizers, verifiers and identifiers residing in servers on the network. MRCPv2 is not a "stand-alone" protocol - it relies on a session management protocol such as the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to establish the MRCPv2 control session between the client and the server, and for rendezvous and capability discovery. It also depends on SIP and SDP to establish the media sessions and associated parameters between the media source or sink and the media server. Once this is done, the MRCPv2 protocol exchange operates over the control session established above, allowing the client to control the media processing resources on the speech resource server. Working Group Summary Nothing out of the ordinary happened in the WG to note. Document Quality There are over 20 interoperable implementations of clients, servers, open source, and APIs based on this document.