Subject: [Speechsc] Note Self :-)

From: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:42:29 -0700

I noticed that the some of the NLSML examples in the apendix of the 
-05.txt draft have confidence value of 100, 60 or 40. They should be 
1.0, 0.6 and 0.4

I have fixed these in my word document and will be available shortly in 
-06.txt.
The 06.txt changes are mainly expected to be the the  IANA consideration 
and if people feel strongly converting the Verification/Enrollment XML 
to W3C Schema. I am hoping we can go last call with the -06 draft, and I 
don't expect any major changes to the spec in the -06 draft. If anyone 
feels otherwise, please let me know.

Thx,
Sarvi.

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

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:36:00 -0400

No need to wait for WGLC for people to look at it!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reifenrath, Klaus [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:38 AM
> To: 'Sarvi Shanmugham'
> Cc: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Note Self :-)
> 
> 
> Hi Sarvi,
> 
> I did not have much time to read the 05 draft yet. I think we 
> need to wait
> for last call until the NLSML section was carefully reviewed! 
> This may take
> some time as we need to evolve ASR experts.
[snip]

---

From: "Reifenrath, Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:01:37 -0400

Comments inline
 
A few more editorial notes:
1) The legend for the generic header fields is wrong (copy and paste error).
2) In the legend on page 57 the letter (M) is used twice.
3) I like the new tables of the header fields very much. Unfortunately they
no longer show, which header fields MUST be supported by all MRCP servers. 
 
Regards,
Klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarvi Shanmugham [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Freitag, 22. Oktober 2004 19:24
To: Reifenrath, Klaus
Cc: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Note Self :-)

Comments inline.

Reifenrath, Klaus wrote:

Hi Sarvi,

I did not have much time to read the 05 draft yet. I think we need to wait

for last call until the NLSML section was carefully reviewed! This may take

I agree there needs to be some review of this section. But I should also
note that the agreement was that this would be the same as the NLSML used in
MRCPv1 and that we would not try to add any new features.  
[Reifenrath, Klaus] I agree 100%.
 What I have tried to do is to bring in the NLSML from the latest W3C NLSML
draft and make it consistent with MRCPv1 NLSML usage. 
[Reifenrath, Klaus] Thanks for your effort!!
  So lets go ahead and review to make sure that NLSML section meets those
goals.
[Reifenrath, Klaus] OK. Review is already in progress.

According to the current spec the verification and enrollment results should

be in MRCP-NLSML. Therefore the W3C schema and DTD of MRCP-NLSML should

include the verification and enrollment result elements. I attach the W3C

schema for the verification result that I posted some weeks ago, which can

easily be integrated into your NLSML schema.

I don't think we are planning on calling it anything else other than NLSML,
correct. 
But that said, I think we should leave the 3 schema's as separate entities.
Coz we may end up using the Enrollment and Verification Schema even when we
move to EMMA, assuming EMMA would still not be addressing these 2 aspects in
its first version. So leaving it modular has its advantages.
[Reifenrath, Klaus] I think we should add a reference to the NLSML W3C
working draft on page 73 and we should make clear that NLSML will be
replaced by EMMA in the future. 
But note that we still embed the Verification and Enrollment XML within the
NLSML markup but under its own namespace. 
[Reifenrath, Klaus] What is the meaning of the mandatory grammar attribute
for verification results? Since NLSML is now part of the MRCP spec I wonder
if namespacing is still required.
Just that we are leaving its definition as separate schema.

I will try to convert the rest of the XML into W3C schema as well. 
[Reifenrath, Klaus] Why don't you use the W3C schema I submitted?

Further major issues:

a) From my point of view a section about SIP based server selection (RFC

3841) is still missing.

Do you have some text in mind that you would like to add. If not I will add
some in the next draft.

b) Another pending issue is the start line format (see attached mail

thread).

This was changed based on early feedback from Cullen gave on this mailing
list. The idea was that it was good practice to have the first field
recognize the protocol and version. Also, that the Length message be
available at a fixed location from the beginning of the message for all
messages. It was said that it makes parsing efficient as we know the length
of the message by looking at a fixed location from the beginning of the
message.
[Reifenrath, Klaus] OK 

Minor issues:

a) on page 16 you reference section 3.2 instead of 4.2

fixed.

b) section 5: does the message length of the start line include the length

of the start line?

Have corrected as follows "The message-length field specifies the length of
the message, including the start-line, and MUST be the 2nd token from the
beginning of the message." 

c) section 5.2 (page 20): is 405 also the right failure code, if the session

is not found 

yes. will  clarified

d) hot-max-duration/hot-min-duration (on page 66) specify the

maximum/minimum length of an utterance in milliseconds    (not in seconds)

Looks like this was fixed in -05.txt
[Reifenrath, Klaus] No. On page 66 you find the following sentences:
 
    It specifies the maximum length of an utterance (in seconds) that 
    should be considered for Hotword recognition.
 
    It specifies the minimum length of an utterance (in seconds) that can 
    be considered for Hotword. 

thanks,
Sarvi

Klaus

-----Original Message-----

From: Sarvi Shanmugham [ mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ]

Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Oktober 2004 22:42

To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)

Subject: [Speechsc] Note Self :-)

1.0, 0.6 and 0.4

-06.txt.

Thx,

Sarvi.

Speechsc mailing list

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc> 

  _____  

Subject: 
RE: [Speechsc] question about v2 message format

From: 
Pierre Forgues  <mailto:[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>

Date: 
Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:44:30 -0400

To: 
"Reifenrath, Klaus"  <mailto:[email-masked]>
<[email-masked]>, Daniel Burnett  <mailto:[email-masked]>
<[email-masked]>

To: 
"Reifenrath, Klaus"  <mailto:[email-masked]>
<[email-masked]>, Daniel Burnett  <mailto:[email-masked]>
<[email-masked]>

CC: 
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

I agree we should follow the lead with other protocols like SIP.  Client

to server request line must start with the method and end with the

protocol and version.

Server to client response-line and event-line start with the protocol

and version.

Pierre

-----Original Message-----

From:  [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  [
mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ] On

Behalf Of Reifenrath, Klaus

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:01 AM

To: Daniel Burnett

Cc:  [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

Subject: RE: [Speechsc] question about v2 message format

Hi Dan,

I like the SIP format where the start-line of a request starts with the

method and the status-line of the response starts with the SIP-version.

Unfortunately we have 3 types of MRCP messages: requests, responses and

events. If we change the message definition I would suggest to start the

request-line with the method and the response-line and event-line with

the

MRCP version.

But also with the current MRCPv2 message definition the message parser

can

distinguish the message types efficiently. Having the version

information

right at the beginning has some advantages. 

Klaus

-----Original Message-----

From: Daniel Burnett [ mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
]

Sent: Freitag, 25. Juni 2004 06:28

To:  [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

Subject: [Speechsc] question about v2 message format

The convention used for MRCP messages has changed in v2 and it is

different

from that in

RTSP, SIP, and HTTP.

New convention: "MRCP/2.0 123 VER-SET-VOICEPRINT 123456

Old convention: "START-OF-SPEECH 543258 IN-PROGRESS MRCP/1.0"

Why the change in convention?

-- dan

Speechsc mailing list

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc> 

Speechsc mailing list

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>