Subject: Re: [Speechsc] mrcpv2-01: DTMF codecs (S 8.15)

From: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:33:49 -0800

Eric Burger wrote:

>How about the DTMF detector MUST support RFC2833 and MAY detect in-band DTMF tones?  Speech recognition detector MAY support DTMF.  If it does, it MUST support RFC2833 and MAY detect in-band DTMF.
>
I would propose that Speech detector MUST support DTMF through RFC2833 
and MAY  detect in-band.

Sarvi

>
>Sound OK, or is this something that really is up to the ASR vendors to decide?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:48:26 -0500

--On Tuesday, February 3, 2004 11:33 PM -0800 Sarvi Shanmugham 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> Eric Burger wrote:
>
>> How about the DTMF detector MUST support RFC2833 and MAY detect in-band
>> DTMF tones?  Speech recognition detector MAY support DTMF.  If it does,
>> it MUST support RFC2833 and MAY detect in-band DTMF.
>>
why MUST? I could imagine a system designed to never talk to a telephone 
and hence never need any DTMF capability. I'd be ok with a SHOULD, or a 
conditional MUST (but I'm not sure how to express the condition).

Dave.

---

From: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:46:10 -0800

David R. Oran wrote:

> why MUST? I could imagine a system designed to never talk to a 
> telephone and hence never need any DTMF capability. I'd be ok with a 
> SHOULD, or a conditional MUST (but I'm not sure how to express the 
> condition). 

I guess my MUST proposal was on the assumption that the most common 
usage was going to be telephone. But your right, I will settle for a 
SHOULD with some text mentioning that for telephony usage, it this would 
be MUST through RFC2833 and optionally inband detection.

Sarvi

---

From: Jeff Kusnitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:01:37 -0800

In reading the section 8.5 on "Recognizer Grammar Data", it would seem 
that the define-grammar method allows one to define multiple grammars on a 
single request - either via a text/uri-list, or multipart/mixed, with 
embedded grammars and lists.  But the description of the define-grammar 
method itself implies that only a single grammar is used at a time (e.g. "
The DEFINE-GRAMMAR method, from the client to the server, provides **a** 
grammar and tells the server to define, download if needed and compile the 
grammar.").

It seems a bit odd to define more than one grammar at a time - how does 
one handle failures, for example (should multiple failing URIs be 
returned, if one fails are any others that compiled undefined, etc).

Perhaps the define-grammar method can be clarified to indicate that it 
only allows a single grammar, either inline, or via a text/uri-list?

Thanks,
Jeff