Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24.txt> (Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2)) to Proposed Standard

From: Dan Burnett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:20:21 -0400

On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:10 AM, Slawomir Testowy wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> Some other comments:
> 
>> 4.2. Managing Resource Control Channels
> 
>> When the client wants to add a media processing resource to the
>> session, it issues a SIP re-INVITE transaction.
> 
> Is it possible to allocate more than one resource of the same type
> during one SIP dialog? Example in 4.2 shows how to allocate
> synthesizer and recognizer, but does not specify if there may be e.g.
> more than one synthesizer.

No, it is not possible.  There is no way, for example, to specify which recognizer is being deleted when you deallocate one.  I will clarify this restriction in the specification.

> 
> 
> 
>> 6.2.9. Content-Encoding
>> 
>> 
>>  The content-encoding entity-header is used as a modifier to the
>>  media-type.  When present, its value indicates what additional
>>  content encoding has been applied to the entity-body, and thus what
>>  decoding mechanisms must be applied in order to obtain the media-type
>>  referenced by the content-type header field.  Content-encoding is
>>  primarily used to allow a document to be compressed without losing
>>  the identity of its underlying media type.  Note that the SDP session
>>  can be used to determine accepted encodings (see Section 7).  This
>>  header field MAY occur on all messages.
> 
> Section 7 describes usage of OPTIONS method of SIP and Accept-Encoding
> header is returned by SIP response, not SDP answer, so I guess "Note that
> the SDP session can be used" should be changed to "Note that the SIP
> session can be used".

Good catch.  I will make this change.

> 
>>  When a CONTROL request to jump backward is issued to a currently
>> speaking synthesizer resource, and the target jump point is before
>>  the start of the current "SPEAK" request, the current "SPEAK" request
>>  MUST restart from the beginning of its speech data and the response
>>  to the CONTROL request MUST contain this header field with a value of
>>  "true" indicating a restart.
> 
> Why sometimes requests are surrounded by quotation marks (like "SPEAK")
> and sometimes not (like CONTROL request)? This happens through all the
> specification. This may be a minor nit, but makes the whole paper look like a
> "draft" :)

This is an artifact of having had multiple editors over the years :)  I will correct this.

> 
>> 8.4.7. Prosody-Parameters
> 
>> The prosody parameter headers in the "SET-PARAMS" or "SPEAK" request
>> only apply if the speech data is of type text/plain and does not use
>> a speech markup format.
> 
> Why is it so? Why it is not true for Voice-Parameters?

Technically they are similar in that both can be specified within SSML.  However, this distinction is a subtle one and reflects common practice in voice output design -- a designer is more likely to want to specify a default voice as a header than default prosody, because the former is commonly needed for a document as a whole (even though it can be changed within a document) while the latter typically only applies to specific text (even though one could change it for the document as a whole).

> Is it true for CONTROL (i.e. current SPEAK must be text/plain)?

The distinction between Prosody and Voice parameters applies in the case of CONTROL as well.

> 
> Specification does not say anything about it.
> 
>> 8.4.16. Load-Lexicon
>> 
>> 
>>  This header field is used to indicate whether a lexicon has to be
>>  loaded or unloaded.  The default value for this header field is
>>  "true".  This header field MAY be specified in a DEFINE-LEXICON
>>  method.
> 
> I propose rewording this paragraph to explicilty state that "true" means
> "load lexicon" and "false" means "unload lexicon".

This is a good clarification.  I will add it.

> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> Slawek Testowy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/3/16 The IESG <[email-masked]>:
>> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the Speech Services Control WG
>> (speechsc) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2)'
>>  <draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>> 
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-04-13. (This allows an additional two
>> weeks for review since the document is large and the review period overlaps
>> the Prague IETF meeting). Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>> 
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2/
>> 
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speechsc mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
>> Supplemental web site:
>> &lt;http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/speechsc&gt;
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speechsc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
> Supplemental web site:
> &lt;http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/speechsc&gt;