Subject: Re: [Speechsc] mrcpv2: Waveform-URL, Save-Waveform

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:52:38 -0500

--On Friday, January 30, 2004 4:05 PM -0500 Eric Burger 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> MUST the recognizer store the utterance?  I would think this should be a
> SHOULD.
There needs to be a (subtle but necessary) distinction between *actually 
store* the utterance and *attempt to store* the utterance. From a 
specification perspective, I'm ok with either a MUST or a SHOULD for 
*attempt to store*.

> What if the recognizer does not have storage?  What if it does
> have storage but it is full?  What if it is in overload and does not do
> storage processing?
>
> Thoughts?
>
I think the interesting design question is whether the associated command 
fails if the recording fails. The "be flexible" part of me says that there 
ought to be a command option to say whether the client wants the associated 
ASR/SI/SV command to succeed even if the recording fails, or conversely, 
the actions fail together. The "be simple" part of me says to pick a 
behavior and say "that's the way things work". In the former case we also 
need a soft-success 2xx class response to indicate that the command 
completed but the recording did not happen, with a appropriate reason 
phrase.

Dave.

---

From: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:09:27 -0800

It is a SHOULD level requirement used mostly for torubleshooting.
Sarvi

Eric Burger wrote:

>MUST the recognizer store the utterance?  I would think this should be a SHOULD.  What if the recognizer does not have storage?  What if it does have storage but it is full?  What if it is in overload and does not do storage processing?
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speechsc mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
>
>  
>

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