Subject: [Speechsc] Media Server or Media Resource

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:39:42 -0400

<ChairHat state="off">
I have a form issue, not necessarily a substance issue.

Throughout the MRCPv2 document, the "thing that is a server controlled by
the MRCPv2 protocol" is called a "Media Server".

A Media Server is a device that has a well-defined meaning, in the IETF,
3GPP (MRF), SIP Forum, IPCC, etc.

That definition, IMHO, does not really match with "the thing that is a
server controlled by the MRCPv2 protocol."  In fact, the thing that embodies
the accepted version of a Media Server is often a *client* to the MRCPv2
protocol.

Would anyone be really put out if we did a 1,$:s/media server/media
resource/g throughout the document?

Rationale: The document describes the Media RESOURCE Control Protocol, not
the Media SERVER Control Protocol.

</ChairHat>

Thoughts?  Comments?

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

---

From: Jeff Haynie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:10:22 -0400

That's funny - I myself have struggled with the same term and would be 
much more in favor of "media resource".

Jeff

---

From: "Garland Sharratt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:18:52 -0700

Eric, I concur.  Using the term "media server" for MRCPv2 muddies the
waters, I think, and implies the two things are the same whereas they are
not.

Garland

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Jeff Haynie
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 08:10
To: Eric Burger
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Media Server or Media Resource

Jeff

---

From: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:49:18 -0700

This is fine by me. And I haven't heard any opposition so far.
 I will make the necessary edits.

Sarvi
Garland Sharratt wrote:

>>server controlled by the MRCPv2 protocol."  In fact, the thing that
>>    
>>
>embodies
>  
>