Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification
"Dave Burke" <david.burke@voxpilot.com> Mon, 17 April 2006 16:57 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVX2A-0005wn-9E; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:57:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVX28-0005wi-V3 for speechsc@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:57:04 -0400
Received: from fw01.db01.voxpilot.com ([212.17.54.82] helo=mail.voxpilot.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVX27-0008OI-1X for speechsc@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:57:04 -0400
Received: by mail.voxpilot.com (Postfix, from userid 552) id B78F12140EE; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:57:01 +0000 (GMT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on db01ms01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
X-Spam-Level:
Received: from daburkewxp (dsl-34-34.dsl.netsource.ie [213.79.34.34]) by mail.voxpilot.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C462140ED; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:56:53 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <003e01c6623f$ed393990$0a01a8c0@db01.voxpilot.com>
From: Dave Burke <david.burke@voxpilot.com>
To: Corby Anderson <corby@tellme.com>, Brett Gavagni <gavagni@us.ibm.com>
References: <OF6B1AC58B.B8ED0D63-ON87257153.004F9158-85257153.00508311@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:56:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ba0ec39a747b7612d6a8ae66d1a873c
Cc: speechsc@ietf.org, "Shanmugham, Saravanan" <sarvi@cisco.com>, Bergallo Patrizio <patrizio.bergallo@loquendo.com>
X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group <speechsc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:speechsc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org
In the interests of rough consensus: o Preference for: - Remove message-length altogether o Can live with: - Zero-padding note (as per Sarvi's suggestion) o Don't like: - message-length doesn't include start-line (because this is a half-way house with negligible value - the parser will be searching for \n anyways so why not iterate up to Content-Length) Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Gavagni" <gavagni@us.ibm.com> To: "Corby Anderson" <corby@tellme.com> Cc: <speechsc@ietf.org>; "Shanmugham, Saravanan" <sarvi@cisco.com>; "Bergallo Patrizio" <patrizio.bergallo@loquendo.com> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification > That was the original suggestion when I started with this thread > (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc/current/msg01722.html), > and this suggestion wasn't too well received. > > "Propose to modify the wording that message-length does NOT include the > start-line as an issue to track for the next draft." > > So then we diverged into the defining the true value of the message-length > token, and thus the proposal for the removal of the message-length token > in its entirety. > > This removal proposal was fueled even more with the distinction that the > MRCPv2 session control is separated, especially since MRCPv2 messages are > NOT expected/described as tunnelled. > > I'd be happy if the message-length was modified as originally proposed to > NOT include the size of the start-line in the length, or if the > message-length to be removed from the draft. > > IMO, anything else is a hack. =) > > Continue the flame roasting as necessary. =) > > Thanks, > > Brett Gavagni > WebSphere Voice Server Development > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/pervasive/voice_server/ > gavagni@us.ibm.com > > > > > Corby Anderson <corby@tellme.com> > 04/14/2006 08:26 PM > > To > Brett Gavagni/West Palm Beach/IBM@IBMUS > cc > "Shanmugham, Saravanan" <sarvi@cisco.com>, speechsc@ietf.org, Bergallo > Patrizio <patrizio.bergallo@loquendo.com> > Subject > Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification > > > > > > > No, you're not the only one. :-) It is hacky. The size calculation that > Dave Burke posted is concise, but it's cumbersome. > > But stepping back a little, it *is* helpful to know the size ahead of > time. Since clients can share an MRCP control channel, it's makes the > server's job easier if it knows ahead of time how many bytes will be in a > particular command. You can imagine an implementation where a the socket > reader understands the first-line format enough to read all the bytes for > a single message into a buffer and then hand it off to a different > class/function/thread for further processing. > > How about if the length pertained to the size of everything *except* the > first line? That would make the size calculation trivial and would still > offer the benefit of having the size around for parsing purposes. > > Corby Anderson > Tellme Networks > > Brett Gavagni wrote: > Am I the only one that thinks this suggestion for padding a fixed length > is a Band-Aid (*hack) for the real problem identified by this thread? > > Thanks, > > Brett Gavagni > WebSphere Voice Server Development > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/pervasive/voice_server/ > gavagni@us.ibm.com > > > > > "Shanmugham, Saravanan" <sarvi@cisco.com> > 04/14/2006 02:06 PM > > To > "Bergallo Patrizio" <patrizio.bergallo@loquendo.com>, <speechsc@ietf.org> > cc > > Subject > RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification > > > > > > > Pete/Bergallo, > > Leading spaces are illegal per the current ABNF definition. > But Pete's suggestion is perfectly legal and makes the encoding phase just > > as effciient. > > I can add this clarification/suggestion for implementers into the > specification. > > Thx, > > Sarvi > > From: Bergallo Patrizio [mailto:patrizio.bergallo@loquendo.com] > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:44 AM > To: speechsc@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification > > > I agree that problems arise more on encoding side than in decoding one. > What about using leading SP, with the same purpose of leading zeros > mentioned by Pete? > Is it legal? > Anyway, though I'm not a big fan of message-length field, I think that > removing it at this stage of spec should be avoided. > > Regards, > Patrizio Bergallo, Loquendo. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete@tech-know-ware.com] > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 9:55 AM > To: Dave Burke > Cc: speechsc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification > > > As someone watching from the sidelines, this issue about the > representation > of the length field potentially changing the value of the > length that needed > to be encoded occurred to me also. > > I wondered if you could use leading zeros in the length field > so that it is > always fixed length. e.g. in C it would be something like: > > sprintf( lstr, "%04d", len ); // Not sure if 4 is the right number! > > Messages would then look like: > > MRCP/2.0 0047 543256 200 COMPLETE > ... > > Still a bit of a gotcha though, that could lead to one of > those one in a > hundred type bugs! > > Regards, > > Pete. > -- > ============================================= > Pete Cordell > Tech-Know-Ware Ltd > for XML to C++ data binding visit > http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx > (or http://www.xml2cpp.com) > ============================================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Burke" > To: "Shanmugham, Saravanan" ; "Brett Gavagni" > > Cc: > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 12:39 AM > Subject: Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification > > > > Just wanted to insert one point that I haven't seen mentioned: The > message-length makes it easier to decode but not encode. > > This is because the message-length also includes the number > > of bytes > > that > specify the message-length in the header. The algorithm for > > determining > > the message-length has to add up all the bytes in the > > message to get a > > total (label: N), then determine the number of bytes to represent N > (label: M), then check if the total N+M rolls over a power > > of 10 (if it > > does you need another byte). The value to insert for the > > message-length is > > not simply N+M but rather > > (N >= (10^M-M)) ? N+M+1 : N+M > > For example, if N=97 then M=2 and N+M=99=message-length. > > However, if > > N=98 > then M=2 but now N+M=100 => message-length=N+M+1 > > Sorta awkward - no? > > Dave > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brett Gavagni" > To: "Shanmugham, Saravanan" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 1:52 PM > Subject: RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification > > > Hi Sarvi, > > I realize that it may be late in the game for addressing > > problems in > > the specification, but I would evangelize that its cheaper > > to pay now > > (potential standardization delays) than to pay later (poor > > adoption) > > due to convolution and problematic issues in the spec. > > Since the session control for MRCPv2 is separated (a la SIP, RTSP, > etc..) and not tunnelled, what would be the compelling > > reason that the > > message-length token exist in the start-line especially since the > "Content-Length" header? > > I'm now proposing the removal of the message-length token from the > start-line in entirety, as it is at least redundant and > > deviating from > > the HTTP-like conventions leveraged throughout the spec. > > Thanks, > > Brett Gavagni > WebSphere Voice Server Development > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/pervasive/voice_server/ > gavagni@us.ibm.com > > > ...cut... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > > > > Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A. > > ================================================ > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to > <mailto:webmaster@telecomitalia.it>webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you > <http://www.loquendo.com>www.loquendo.com > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
- [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Carter, Jerry
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Shanmugham, Saravanan
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Shanmugham, Saravanan
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Shanmugham, Saravanan
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Dave Burke
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Carter, Jerry
- Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Pete Cordell
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Bergallo Patrizio
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Shanmugham, Saravanan
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Shanmugham, Saravanan
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Corby Anderson
- Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Dave Burke
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Burger, Eric
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Brett Gavagni
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Carter, Jerry
- RE: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Reifenrath, Klaus, VF-Group
- Re: [Speechsc] message-length clarification Dan Burnett