Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Name for the Speechsc protocol

From: "Hirsch, Morna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:15:44 -0400

I also support to call it MRCPv2, in order to have a clear migration path
for the future. But I would consider a document listing the compatibility
issues necessary for the acceptance of the customers that already have
MRCPv1.

Morna

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv Dharmadhikari [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Dienstag, 29. Juli 2003 23:20
To: David R. Oran; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Name for the Speechsc protocol

"MRCP" name is already gaining traction with customers, VoiceXML platform
vendors and developer community. The new protocol proposed as part of
SPEECHSC is reusing the original MRCP resource control primitives except for
modifcations in session establishment. So, it is an evolution from the
original MRCP. Therefore, I will support the protocol to be called as "MRCP
Version 2". In any case, "SPEECHSC" is awkward to pronounce:-)

-Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: David R. Oran [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Speechsc] Name for the Speechsc protocol

Now that we have a candidate protocol document for SPEECHSC, we get the fun 
task of cooking up a name. In the absence of better suggestions, the 
default would in fact be "SPEECHSC".

I would like to suggest an alternative for the consideration of the working 
group. This is based on a conversation I had with one of our ADs (Allison) 
during a break at the IETF meeting.

There are some advantages to calling the protocol "MRCP Version 2". One is 
that there is some market visibility for MRCP and it's easier to re-use the 
name than socialize a new name. The second is that while the IESG is 
willing to publish MRCP (version 1) as an informational RFC, we definitely 
don't want a dual-track in the market as we've seen with MGCP and MEGACO, 
and instead clearly position the new protocol as superseding and 
obsolescing MRCP version 1. The easiest way to do this is to simply call it 
version 2.

One counter-argument to this logic is that that the protocol we are working 
on is not backwards compatible with the existing deployed MRCP. Such 
backward compatibility is often expected of a protocol with the same name 
and a higher version number. This is not cast on stone tablets however.

Opinions and alternatives welcome. Please post to the list. I would like to 
see if we can get consensus on a name in time for the authors to post the 
first WG-item draft of the protocol, so we only have one name change.

Thanks, Dave.

------------------------
David R. Oran
Cisco Systems
7 Ladyslipper Lane
Acton, MA 01720
Office: +1 978 264 2048
VoIP: +1 408 571 4576
Email: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc

---

From: RJ Auburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:55:41 -0700

Add my name to the list of people who would support MRCPv2.

	RJ

---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
tel:+1-407-418-1800