Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Note Self :-)

From: "Reifenrath, Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:37:46 -0400

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.

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.

Further major issues:
a) From my point of view a section about SIP based server selection (RFC
3841) is still missing.
b) Another pending issue is the start line format (see attached mail
thread).

Minor issues:
a) on page 16 you reference section 3.2 instead of 4.2
b) section 5: does the message length of the start line include the length
of the start line?
c) section 5.2 (page 20): is 405 also the right failure code, if the session
is not found 
d) hot-max-duration/hot-min-duration (on page 66) specify the
maximum/minimum length of an utterance in milliseconds    (not in seconds)

Klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarvi Shanmugham [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Oktober 2004 22:42
To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)
Subject: [Speechsc] Note Self :-)

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

Subject: RE: [Speechsc] question about v2 message format
From: Pierre Forgues <[email-masked]>
To: "Reifenrath, Klaus" <[email-masked]>, Daniel Burnett <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:44:30 -0400

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]] On
Behalf Of Reifenrath, Klaus
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:01 AM
To: Daniel Burnett
Cc: [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]]
Sent: Freitag, 25. Juni 2004 06:28
To: [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]
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: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:24:22 -0700

Comments inline.

>some time as we need to evolve ASR experts.
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.  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.  So lets go ahead 
and review to make sure that NLSML section meets those goals.

>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.
But note that we still embed the Verification and Enrollment XML within 
the NLSML markup but under its own namespace. 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.

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

>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
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
yes. will  clarified

>maximum/minimum length of an utterance in milliseconds    (not in seconds)
Looks like this was fixed in -05.txt

thanks,
Sarvi

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> RE: [Speechsc] question about v2 message format
> From:
> To:
> "Reifenrath, Klaus" <[email-masked]>, Daniel Burnett 
> <[email-masked]>
>
> To:
> "Reifenrath, Klaus" <[email-masked]>, Daniel Burnett 
> <[email-masked]>
> CC:
> [email-masked]
>
>