From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 1 21:14:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23127 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxzQ7-0005Rp-1P for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:14:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i222E7JK020937 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:14:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxzQ6-0005Rc-SQ for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:14:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23079 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxzQ4-0005xT-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:14:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxzP7-0005ou-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:13:06 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxzO8-0005gW-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:12:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxzO6-0005KB-2u; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:12:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxzND-0005Dz-I6 for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:11:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22867 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxzNB-0005YW-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:11:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxzME-0005Q9-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:10:07 -0500 Received: from goalie.snowshore.com ([216.57.133.4] helo=webshield.office.snowshore.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxzLG-0005Cl-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:09:06 -0500 Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com(192.168.1.172) by webshield.office.snowshore.com via csmap id 4912; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:08:35 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:07:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB1A232@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Thread-Topic: Updated Supplemental Web Site Thread-Index: AcP/+uV/I+wcHmyDTliWYGNn5YDQaQ== From: "Eric Burger" To: "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Speechsc] Updated Supplemental Web Site Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The SPEECHSC Supplemental Web Site has the presentations and agenda for = today's meeting. http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/speechsc/ _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 3 01:11:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05433 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 01:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyPb4-0005q3-47 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:11:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i236BAVH022439 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 01:11:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyPb3-0005pq-W5 for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:11:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05415 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 01:11:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyPb1-0004xq-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:11:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyPZz-0004os-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:10:04 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyPZ0-0004g4-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:09:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyPYz-0005BJ-L0; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyPYL-00056U-A6 for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:08:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05299 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 01:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyPYI-0004Z3-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:08:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyPXQ-0004PJ-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:07:25 -0500 Received: from goalie.snowshore.com ([216.57.133.4] helo=webshield.office.snowshore.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyPWh-0004CB-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:06:39 -0500 Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com(192.168.1.172) by webshield.office.snowshore.com via csmap id 3767; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:06:04 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 01:06:10 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB1A275@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Thread-Topic: Draft Minutes Thread-Index: AcQA5ZIKH4ii6xe6TV+DHKKbDuimiQ== From: "Eric Burger" To: "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Awesome job by Magnus! Please comment by 3/12. SpeechSC Minutes 040302 17.00-18.00 Magnus Westerlund Chairs Introduction and WG Status --------------------------------- The WG chairs started with agenda bashing, followed up with presenting=20 the WG status. The SpeechSC requirements document has been approved by=20 the IESG with some smaller edits requested. However the document was=20 lost between IESG and the RFC-Editor. This has delayed the publication.=20 There is a milestone to request publication of any drafts by October 03. = The current goal is to request publication no later than October 04. Separate Record Function Discussion ----------------------------------- The question to the WG was: Should there be a explicit recording=20 function in MRCPv2? The draft version 01 does not have a pure recording=20 function. Recording behaviour is determined by using speech recognition=20 or at least voice activity detection. There was some discussion around=20 the use cases for recording. One use cases mentioned for this behaviour=20 is voice mail recording, where the recording is controlled through voice = recognition. Therefore there is desire to have a RECORD resource, a=20 RECORD method which has has a header indicating how the recorder should=20 perform speech recognition. Another use case that match this behaviour=20 is recording for training, or verification. The conclusion of the=20 discussion was there is no expressed need for blind recording, any one=20 needing this can use RTSP record. Also this use case should be mentioned = in the protocol spec to motivate the functionality. MRCPv2 ------ The draft version 02 was made available on mailing list, will be=20 submitted when internet-drafts@ietf.org opens again. A number of open=20 issues where discussed. Presentation was made by Sarvi Shanmugham. NAT traversal for the MRCPv2 TCP control channel setup: As long as only=20 one end-point is in a private space it is possible to make things work.=20 If both entities are in a private space a relay will be needed. To get=20 TCP to work some signalling to indicate how the TCP connect should be=20 done is needed. This is similar to the MMUSIC work on Co-Media=20 (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-05). Do we need an INTERMEDIATE-RECOG-RESULT: The WG was questioned if there=20 any need for this functionality. Nobody expressed any desire for it.=20 Unless anyone on the mailing list expresses a real need for this=20 functionality, it will not be included. A mail will be sent to the=20 mailing list to ask this question. Speech or hotword barge-in: Eric Burger asked if there is any protocol=20 difference between the two. The answer is that real issues is actually=20 to identify what type of barge in that has happened, as this may exist=20 policies accepting either of the types. The conclusion is to confirm the = with the mailing list that this feature is included if a solution exist. Multiple instances of a Header field Vs Single header field with=20 multiple values: First there where some discussion around the historical = reasons. Then it was asked; Are any reason why not to leave it as it is? As none had a real reason=20 to change it from how SIP, and HTTP handles headers? The list shall be=20 asked if they no a reason to change it. Header field ranges Confidence-Threshold, Speed-Vs-Accuracy etc(0.0 -=20 1.0 or 0 - 100): There was consensus in the room to use 0.0-1.0 ranges.=20 It will be confirmed by the mailing list. Proposal to specify a fixed header with a vendor identifier and a vendor = registry for the Recognizer context block: David Oran stated that IESG=20 has concerns with vendor specific extensions that make things fail. To=20 make this work, the specification needs to ensure that it is optional=20 and can be ignored. No new error cases should be generated by this. Also = the motivation of this was discussed, allowing some resources to work=20 better, however it is not required to. A proposal was: The client MUST=20 copy the header field to the next resource within the session. Some=20 discussion of making the MUST a SHOULD. After some more discussion=20 around the issues the following conclusion was reached in the room:=20 Client must copy, Server must not barf. Server is not allowed to reject a request based on empty or non-present=20 header. The WG should also look into if there exist an already existing vendor=20 registry that can be leveraged, for example with IANA. DTMF support and RFC 2833 support: The conclusion was: If one supports=20 DTMF, one MUST support RFC 2833. Confirm consensus on the mailing list. Security support - sips: ? https? Digest ? SRTP?: What is the minimal=20 security support to implement. To help interoperability it is normal to=20 require a single solution as being mandatory when having security=20 features. The discussion was split into the different parts. For the=20 MRCP channel it where consensus for having MANDATORY support of TLS. For = the media channel, the initial proposal from David Oran was: when=20 transmitting media streams requiring security one uses either SRTP or=20 IPSec. Further discussion made the observation that no other place in=20 the system does there exist a requirement for IPSec. Therefore there=20 might be a reason for looking more a SRTP. Further comments was that the = WG should early on contact security area advisors to have them check the = proposal, thus avoiding late surprise. Another question was, how does=20 one indicate in SDP that one should use IPSec for a media stream? Define grammars one at a time: This proposal was supported by the room. PAUSE on Barge In: Is there a need to have this instead of Stop on barge = in? There where no comments raised on this topic. There is two proposal for similar functionality of determining available = functionality: "OPTION commands for m-lines" and "SIP Callee capability=20 for resource description and capability". The proposal is to check if=20 the SIP Callee method can solve everything. IF not then one needs to=20 look into SIP OPTIONS. 3PCC model of connecting with the MRCPv2 server: It was proposed that=20 using Offer-Answer will solve the problem. Invite response can be the=20 initial offer. Specification conclusion: The specification is believed to be=20 functionality wise completed. However it needs review to ensure that=20 everything works. The WG chairs asked Sarvi if was possible to have a=20 target of working group last call by end of April, which he confirmed. _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 3 09:45:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00858 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyXc3-0005Oj-Ca for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:44:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i23Eihp8020745 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:44:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyXc2-0005OW-Qw for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:44:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00828 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyXc0-0000wo-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:44:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyXaB-0000am-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:42:50 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyXYY-0000C3-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:41:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyXYT-0005DU-Qo; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyXXZ-00059E-NI for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:40:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00425 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:40:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyXXV-0007nP-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:40:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyXVV-0007Ny-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:37:58 -0500 Received: from ns1.nuance.com ([208.252.220.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyXTo-00070c-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:36:12 -0500 Received: from mpb1exbr01.nuance.com (mpb1exbr01.nuance.com [10.0.0.43]) by ns1.nuance.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29FB74015; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 06:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from MPB1EXCH02.nuance.com ([10.0.0.56]) by mpb1exbr01.nuance.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 06:35:34 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 06:35:34 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Draft Minutes Thread-Index: AcQA5ZIKH4ii6xe6TV+DHKKbDuimiQARIlKg From: "Daniel Burnett" To: "Eric Burger" , "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2004 14:35:34.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[C99FFA30:01C4012C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eric, Thanks for sending the minutes. Please accept my apologies again for = not being able to attend. I have a question about your "speech vs hotword barge-in" topic. = "speech" and "hotword" are recognition types distinguished by what = happens on a rejection (failure to match the speech to a grammar path). = Barge-in refers to whether or not a recognizer listens for speech while = a prompt is playing. My understanding is that these features are = orthogonal. Can you explain the question here? Also, what does MANDATORY support for TLS (for MRCP) mean? In = particular, what requirements does it place on server implementations of = MRCP? -- dan -----Original Message----- From: speechsc-admin@ietf.org [mailto:speechsc-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Eric Burger Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:06 PM To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail) Subject: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Awesome job by Magnus! Please comment by 3/12. SpeechSC Minutes 040302 17.00-18.00 Magnus Westerlund Chairs Introduction and WG Status --------------------------------- The WG chairs started with agenda bashing, followed up with presenting=20 the WG status. The SpeechSC requirements document has been approved by=20 the IESG with some smaller edits requested. However the document was=20 lost between IESG and the RFC-Editor. This has delayed the publication.=20 There is a milestone to request publication of any drafts by October 03. = The current goal is to request publication no later than October 04. Separate Record Function Discussion ----------------------------------- The question to the WG was: Should there be a explicit recording=20 function in MRCPv2? The draft version 01 does not have a pure recording=20 function. Recording behaviour is determined by using speech recognition=20 or at least voice activity detection. There was some discussion around=20 the use cases for recording. One use cases mentioned for this behaviour=20 is voice mail recording, where the recording is controlled through voice = recognition. Therefore there is desire to have a RECORD resource, a=20 RECORD method which has has a header indicating how the recorder should=20 perform speech recognition. Another use case that match this behaviour=20 is recording for training, or verification. The conclusion of the=20 discussion was there is no expressed need for blind recording, any one=20 needing this can use RTSP record. Also this use case should be mentioned = in the protocol spec to motivate the functionality. MRCPv2 ------ The draft version 02 was made available on mailing list, will be=20 submitted when internet-drafts@ietf.org opens again. A number of open=20 issues where discussed. Presentation was made by Sarvi Shanmugham. NAT traversal for the MRCPv2 TCP control channel setup: As long as only=20 one end-point is in a private space it is possible to make things work.=20 If both entities are in a private space a relay will be needed. To get=20 TCP to work some signalling to indicate how the TCP connect should be=20 done is needed. This is similar to the MMUSIC work on Co-Media=20 (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-05). Do we need an INTERMEDIATE-RECOG-RESULT: The WG was questioned if there=20 any need for this functionality. Nobody expressed any desire for it.=20 Unless anyone on the mailing list expresses a real need for this=20 functionality, it will not be included. A mail will be sent to the=20 mailing list to ask this question. Speech or hotword barge-in: Eric Burger asked if there is any protocol=20 difference between the two. The answer is that real issues is actually=20 to identify what type of barge in that has happened, as this may exist=20 policies accepting either of the types. The conclusion is to confirm the = with the mailing list that this feature is included if a solution exist. Multiple instances of a Header field Vs Single header field with=20 multiple values: First there where some discussion around the historical = reasons. Then it was asked; Are any reason why not to leave it as it is? As none had a real reason=20 to change it from how SIP, and HTTP handles headers? The list shall be=20 asked if they no a reason to change it. Header field ranges Confidence-Threshold, Speed-Vs-Accuracy etc(0.0 -=20 1.0 or 0 - 100): There was consensus in the room to use 0.0-1.0 ranges.=20 It will be confirmed by the mailing list. Proposal to specify a fixed header with a vendor identifier and a vendor = registry for the Recognizer context block: David Oran stated that IESG=20 has concerns with vendor specific extensions that make things fail. To=20 make this work, the specification needs to ensure that it is optional=20 and can be ignored. No new error cases should be generated by this. Also = the motivation of this was discussed, allowing some resources to work=20 better, however it is not required to. A proposal was: The client MUST=20 copy the header field to the next resource within the session. Some=20 discussion of making the MUST a SHOULD. After some more discussion=20 around the issues the following conclusion was reached in the room:=20 Client must copy, Server must not barf. Server is not allowed to reject a request based on empty or non-present=20 header. The WG should also look into if there exist an already existing vendor=20 registry that can be leveraged, for example with IANA. DTMF support and RFC 2833 support: The conclusion was: If one supports=20 DTMF, one MUST support RFC 2833. Confirm consensus on the mailing list. Security support - sips: ? https? Digest ? SRTP?: What is the minimal=20 security support to implement. To help interoperability it is normal to=20 require a single solution as being mandatory when having security=20 features. The discussion was split into the different parts. For the=20 MRCP channel it where consensus for having MANDATORY support of TLS. For = the media channel, the initial proposal from David Oran was: when=20 transmitting media streams requiring security one uses either SRTP or=20 IPSec. Further discussion made the observation that no other place in=20 the system does there exist a requirement for IPSec. Therefore there=20 might be a reason for looking more a SRTP. Further comments was that the = WG should early on contact security area advisors to have them check the = proposal, thus avoiding late surprise. Another question was, how does=20 one indicate in SDP that one should use IPSec for a media stream? Define grammars one at a time: This proposal was supported by the room. PAUSE on Barge In: Is there a need to have this instead of Stop on barge = in? There where no comments raised on this topic. There is two proposal for similar functionality of determining available = functionality: "OPTION commands for m-lines" and "SIP Callee capability=20 for resource description and capability". The proposal is to check if=20 the SIP Callee method can solve everything. IF not then one needs to=20 look into SIP OPTIONS. 3PCC model of connecting with the MRCPv2 server: It was proposed that=20 using Offer-Answer will solve the problem. Invite response can be the=20 initial offer. Specification conclusion: The specification is believed to be=20 functionality wise completed. However it needs review to ensure that=20 everything works. The WG chairs asked Sarvi if was possible to have a=20 target of working group last call by end of April, which he confirmed. _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 3 13:10:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14839 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:10:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ayaor-0003wn-4q for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:10:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i23IA9OP015170 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:10:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ayaoq-0003wb-U2 for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:10:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14733 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:10:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayaop-0002P5-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:10:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyamK-0001fI-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:07:34 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayajp-0000qH-02 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:04:57 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AyaVW-0000zA-KC for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:50:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyaVQ-0001gO-Ec; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:50:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyaV4-0001fJ-Vx for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:49:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13581 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:49:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyaV3-00065g-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:49:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyaU5-0005nb-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:48:41 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyaSV-0005J0-00; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:47:04 -0500 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i23HkTF4052514; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:46:29 -0500 Received: from d03nm120.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.82]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i23HkROc163374; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:46:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: To: "Daniel Burnett" Cc: "Eric Burger" , "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" , speechsc-admin@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003 From: Jeff Kusnitz Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:46:27 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM120/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 03/03/2004 10:46:29, Serialize complete at 03/03/2004 10:46:29 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0061909788256E4C_=" Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0061909788256E4C_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Dan Burnett wrote on 03/03/2004 06:35:34 AM: > Eric, > > Thanks for sending the minutes. Please accept my apologies again > for not being able to attend. > > I have a question about your "speech vs hotword barge-in" topic. > "speech" and "hotword" are recognition types distinguished by what > happens on a rejection (failure to match the speech to a grammar > path). Barge-in refers to whether or not a recognizer listens for > speech while a prompt is playing. My understanding is that these > features are orthogonal. Can you explain the question here? If I'm not mistaken (I also was not able to attend), the "speech vs hotword barge-in" request came from me - it was a request for a header that would map to the VoiceXML bargeintype attribute - when set to "speech", the recognition engine would send a bargein message to the client/tts engine immediately, but when set to "hotword", the bargein message would only be sent in the event of a successful recognition. Thanks, Jeff --=_alternative 0061909788256E4C_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Dan Burnett wrote on 03/03/2004 06:35:34 AM:

> Eric,
>
> Thanks for sending the minutes.  Please accept my apologies again
> for not being able to attend.
>
> I have a question about your "speech vs hotword barge-in" topic.  
> "speech" and "hotword" are recognition types distinguished by what
> happens on a rejection (failure to match the speech to a grammar
> path).  Barge-in refers to whether or not a recognizer listens for
> speech while a prompt is playing.  My understanding is that these
> features are orthogonal.  Can you explain the question here?

If I'm not mistaken (I also was not able to attend), the "speech vs hotword barge-in" request came from me - it was a request for a header that would map to the VoiceXML bargeintype attribute - when set to "speech", the recognition engine would send a bargein message to the client/tts engine immediately, but when set to "hotword", the bargein message would only be sent in the event of a successful recognition.

Thanks,
Jeff --=_alternative 0061909788256E4C_=-- _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 3 13:31:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16382 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ayb8k-00053O-WA for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:30:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i23IUghQ019426 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:30:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ayb8k-00053F-RM for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:30:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16361 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:30:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayb8i-0006ZD-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:30:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayb7m-0006Pg-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:29:43 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayb76-0006GT-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:29:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ayb77-0004wi-Fh; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ayb6k-0004vL-Uj for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:28:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16267 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayb6i-0006Ey-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:28:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayb5k-00065D-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:27:37 -0500 Received: from goalie.snowshore.com ([216.57.133.4] helo=webshield.office.snowshore.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayb4l-0005o7-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:26:35 -0500 Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com(192.168.1.172) by webshield.office.snowshore.com via csmap id 18215; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:25:57 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:25:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB1A283@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Thread-Topic: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Thread-Index: AcQBR4xWZqlY8M2wS3CDXt81JYGOUwABEH3A From: "Eric Burger" To: "Jeff Kusnitz" , "Daniel Burnett" Cc: "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On the barge v. hotword issue, Jeff's interpretation is correct. On the TLS issue: because of the security and privacy issues surrounding = identification credentials (e.g., SV templates) and recognition results = (e.g., credit card numbers), MRCPv2 servers MUST have some baseline = security mechanism. This guarantees to clients that, if they desire, = they KNOW that they can make secure requests. That said, do not confuse "MUST support TLS" with "MUST *use* TLS". It = is up to the client to chose to use TLS or not. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kusnitz [mailto:jk@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:46 PM To: Daniel Burnett Cc: Eric Burger; IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail); speechsc-admin@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Dan Burnett wrote on 03/03/2004 06:35:34 AM: > Eric, >=20 > Thanks for sending the minutes. Please accept my apologies again=20 > for not being able to attend. >=20 > I have a question about your "speech vs hotword barge-in" topic. =20 > "speech" and "hotword" are recognition types distinguished by what=20 > happens on a rejection (failure to match the speech to a grammar=20 > path). Barge-in refers to whether or not a recognizer listens for=20 > speech while a prompt is playing. My understanding is that these=20 > features are orthogonal. Can you explain the question here?=20 If I'm not mistaken (I also was not able to attend), the "speech vs = hotword barge-in" request came from me - it was a request for a header = that would map to the VoiceXML bargeintype attribute - when set to = "speech", the recognition engine would send a bargein message to the = client/tts engine immediately, but when set to "hotword", the bargein = message would only be sent in the event of a successful recognition.=20 Thanks,=20 Jeff _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 3 20:16:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11976 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyhSu-0005gF-JM for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:15:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i241FunQ021829 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:15:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyhSu-0005g0-DN for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:15:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11953 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:15:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyhSs-0003mi-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:15:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyhRx-0003dM-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:14:58 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyhR4-0003TT-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:14:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyhR4-0005Ws-22; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:14:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyhQw-0005Va-UK for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:13:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11848 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:13:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyhQu-0003S5-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:13:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyhPw-0003Gf-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:12:53 -0500 Received: from vtg-um-e2k1.cisco.com ([171.70.93.55] helo=vtg-um-e2k1.sj21ad.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyhOw-0002xt-00; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:11:50 -0500 Received: from cisco.com ([10.21.112.141]) by vtg-um-e2k1.sj21ad.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:09:54 -0800 Message-ID: <40468228.8050807@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:11:04 -0800 From: Sarvi Shanmugham Organization: Cisco Systems Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Kusnitz CC: Daniel Burnett , Eric Burger , "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" , speechsc-admin@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010006030308040508060404" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2004 01:09:55.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[677EFC30:01C40185] Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010006030308040508060404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit comments inline. Jeff Kusnitz wrote: > > Dan Burnett wrote on 03/03/2004 06:35:34 AM: > > > Eric, > > > > Thanks for sending the minutes. Please accept my apologies again > > for not being able to attend. > > > > I have a question about your "speech vs hotword barge-in" topic. > > "speech" and "hotword" are recognition types distinguished by what > > happens on a rejection (failure to match the speech to a grammar > > path). Barge-in refers to whether or not a recognizer listens for > > speech while a prompt is playing. My understanding is that these > > features are orthogonal. Can you explain the question here? > > If I'm not mistaken (I also was not able to attend), the "speech vs > hotword barge-in" request came from me - it was a request for a header > that would map to the VoiceXML bargeintype attribute - when set to > "speech", the recognition engine would send a bargein message to the > client/tts engine immediately, but when set to "hotword", the bargein > message would only be sent in the event of a successful recognition. Your interpretation of the problem is right. I believe there are 2 aspects to the problem or its solution. 1. Is the Kill-On-Barge-In header field may need to 3 value choices, "speech", hotword", "none". This header field tells the synthesizer when it should kill the prompt. 2. The Barg-In-Occured method may need a header describing what type of barge-in occured, "speech" or "htoword". This is because, there could be a regular recognizer and a hotword recognizer active at the same time, and it could be on the same of or a different box from the Synthesizer. The synthesizer could potentially get 2 separate barge-in events, and the synthesizer needs to know when to kill the the prompt. Sarvi > > > Thanks, > Jeff --------------010006030308040508060404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit comments inline.

Jeff Kusnitz wrote:

Dan Burnett wrote on 03/03/2004 06:35:34 AM:

> Eric,
>
> Thanks for sending the minutes.  Please accept my apologies again
> for not being able to attend.
>
> I have a question about your "speech vs hotword barge-in" topic.  
> "speech" and "hotword" are recognition types distinguished by what
> happens on a rejection (failure to match the speech to a grammar
> path).  Barge-in refers to whether or not a recognizer listens for
> speech while a prompt is playing.  My understanding is that these
> features are orthogonal.  Can you explain the question here?

If I'm not mistaken (I also was not able to attend), the "speech vs hotword barge-in" request came from me - it was a request for a header that would map to the VoiceXML bargeintype attribute - when set to "speech", the recognition engine would send a bargein message to the client/tts engine immediately, but when set to "hotword", the bargein message would only be sent in the event of a successful recognition.
Your interpretation of the problem is right.
I believe there are 2 aspects to the problem or its solution.
   1. Is the Kill-On-Barge-In header field may need to 3 value choices, "speech", hotword", "none". This header field tells the synthesizer when it should kill the prompt.
   2. The Barg-In-Occured method may need a header describing what type of barge-in occured, "speech" or  "htoword".

This is because, there could be a regular recognizer and a hotword recognizer active at the same time, and it could be on the same of or a different box from the Synthesizer.  The synthesizer could potentially get 2 separate barge-in events, and the synthesizer needs to know when to kill the the prompt.

Sarvi


Thanks,
Jeff
--------------010006030308040508060404-- _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 3 23:57:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27667 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:57:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aykug-0008GR-Gf for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:56:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i244uoia031761 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:56:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aykug-0008GC-CZ for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:56:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27505 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aykue-00019o-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:56:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ayksv-0000do-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:55:02 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AykrI-0000KL-03 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:53:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AykiL-00062t-Mj for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:44:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AykiI-0006yB-Qz; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:44:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ayki1-0006wi-U0 for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:43:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26539 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aykhz-0006Iy-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:43:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aykgj-00060X-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:42:25 -0500 Received: from goalie.snowshore.com ([216.57.133.4] helo=webshield.office.snowshore.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aykfd-0005Wd-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:41:17 -0500 Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com(192.168.1.172) by webshield.office.snowshore.com via csmap id 18244; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:40:38 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:40:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB1A29C@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] Updated RFCs on Copyright and IPR in relation to IETF Thread-Index: AcP21GDrnK/LPVbBSAilswRKNVniugKzbfcQ From: "Eric Burger" To: "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Speechsc] FW: Updated RFCs on Copyright and IPR in relation to IETF Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Magnus Westerlund Hi, I would like to make all WG participants aware of that 3 RFC has been=20 published that updates your rights in submission to the IETF. I would=20 recommend that you look at them. Reasons why you should look at them = are: - RFC 3667 updates what an Internet draft needs to contain, thus it is=20 important that any document editor reads this. - RFC 3667 also regulates what rights you grant with any contribution to = the IETF. Please note that as contribution is also counted email to the=20 WG, speaking at the WG meeting. Please read the RFC for authoritative=20 text on this. - RFC 3668 describes what rules that apply for IPR disclosures, thus it=20 applies to any contributing to the IETF. - RFC 3669 contains guidelines for how to handle IPR in the WG. This can = be useful reading for people discussing, having or disclosing IPR. See document information, abstract and links below. Cheers Magnus BCP 78 RFC 3667 Title: IETF Rights in Contributions Author(s): S. Bradner Status: Best Current Practice Date: February 2004 Mailbox: sob@harvard.edu Pages: 18 Characters: 43297 SeeAlso: BCP 78 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08.txt URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3667.txt The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo updates RFC 2026, and, with RFC 3668, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. BCP 79 RFC 3668 Title: Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology Author(s): S. Bradner Status: Best Current Practice Date: February 2004 Mailbox: sob@harvard.edu Pages: 17 Characters: 41365 SeeAlso: BCP 79 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12.txt URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3668.txt The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as possible. The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 3667, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC 2028, for all purposes, including reference [2] in RFC 2418. RFC 3669 Title: Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues Author(s): S. Brim Status: Informational Date: February 2004 Mailbox: sbrim@cisco.com Pages: 17 Characters: 40946 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3669.txt This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb useful for working groups dealing with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues. It documents specific examples of how IPR issues have been dealt with in the IETF. _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 4 08:31:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18560 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:31:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aysvr-0004jq-G7 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:30:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i24DUZ2B018213 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:30:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aysvr-0004jg-BE for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:30:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18550 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aysvq-0004It-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:30:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aysur-00048Z-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:29:34 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AysuM-0003ye-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:29:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AysuL-0004cp-4o; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aystn-0004bz-UR for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:28:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18481 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aystm-0003wd-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:28:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aysso-0003lV-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:27:27 -0500 Received: from mx1.scansoft.com ([198.71.64.81]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aysrn-0003R8-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:26:23 -0500 Received: from pb-exchcon.pb.scansoft.com ([10.1.4.73]) by mx1 with trend_isnt_name_B; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:27:05 -0500 Received: by pb-exchcon.pb.scansoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:25:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Reifenrath, Klaus" To: "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" Cc: "'Eric Burger'" Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:25:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am missing one other open issue "The SPEECH-MARKER event for TTS = doesn't indicate the time of the event".=20 See 2) of Brian Eberman's mail=20 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/speechsc/current/msg0029= 1.ht ml With the current interface lip-synching cannot be realized for example. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger@snowshore.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. M=E4rz 2004 07:06 To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail) Subject: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes Awesome job by Magnus! Please comment by 3/12. SpeechSC Minutes 040302 17.00-18.00 Magnus Westerlund Chairs Introduction and WG Status --------------------------------- The WG chairs started with agenda bashing, followed up with presenting=20 the WG status. The SpeechSC requirements document has been approved by=20 the IESG with some smaller edits requested. However the document was=20 lost between IESG and the RFC-Editor. This has delayed the publication. = There is a milestone to request publication of any drafts by October = 03.=20 The current goal is to request publication no later than October 04. Separate Record Function Discussion ----------------------------------- The question to the WG was: Should there be a explicit recording=20 function in MRCPv2? The draft version 01 does not have a pure recording = function. Recording behaviour is determined by using speech recognition = or at least voice activity detection. There was some discussion around=20 the use cases for recording. One use cases mentioned for this behaviour = is voice mail recording, where the recording is controlled through = voice=20 recognition. Therefore there is desire to have a RECORD resource, a=20 RECORD method which has has a header indicating how the recorder should = perform speech recognition. Another use case that match this behaviour=20 is recording for training, or verification. The conclusion of the=20 discussion was there is no expressed need for blind recording, any one=20 needing this can use RTSP record. Also this use case should be = mentioned=20 in the protocol spec to motivate the functionality. MRCPv2 ------ The draft version 02 was made available on mailing list, will be=20 submitted when internet-drafts@ietf.org opens again. A number of open=20 issues where discussed. Presentation was made by Sarvi Shanmugham. NAT traversal for the MRCPv2 TCP control channel setup: As long as only = one end-point is in a private space it is possible to make things work. = If both entities are in a private space a relay will be needed. To get=20 TCP to work some signalling to indicate how the TCP connect should be=20 done is needed. This is similar to the MMUSIC work on Co-Media=20 (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-05). Do we need an INTERMEDIATE-RECOG-RESULT: The WG was questioned if there = any need for this functionality. Nobody expressed any desire for it.=20 Unless anyone on the mailing list expresses a real need for this=20 functionality, it will not be included. A mail will be sent to the=20 mailing list to ask this question. Speech or hotword barge-in: Eric Burger asked if there is any protocol=20 difference between the two. The answer is that real issues is actually=20 to identify what type of barge in that has happened, as this may exist=20 policies accepting either of the types. The conclusion is to confirm = the=20 with the mailing list that this feature is included if a solution = exist. Multiple instances of a Header field Vs Single header field with=20 multiple values: First there where some discussion around the = historical=20 reasons. Then it was asked; Are any reason why not to leave it as it is? As none had a real reason=20 to change it from how SIP, and HTTP handles headers? The list shall be=20 asked if they no a reason to change it. Header field ranges Confidence-Threshold, Speed-Vs-Accuracy etc(0.0 -=20 1.0 or 0 - 100): There was consensus in the room to use 0.0-1.0 ranges. = It will be confirmed by the mailing list. Proposal to specify a fixed header with a vendor identifier and a = vendor=20 registry for the Recognizer context block: David Oran stated that IESG=20 has concerns with vendor specific extensions that make things fail. To=20 make this work, the specification needs to ensure that it is optional=20 and can be ignored. No new error cases should be generated by this. = Also=20 the motivation of this was discussed, allowing some resources to work=20 better, however it is not required to. A proposal was: The client MUST=20 copy the header field to the next resource within the session. Some=20 discussion of making the MUST a SHOULD. After some more discussion=20 around the issues the following conclusion was reached in the room:=20 Client must copy, Server must not barf. Server is not allowed to reject a request based on empty or non-present = header. The WG should also look into if there exist an already existing vendor=20 registry that can be leveraged, for example with IANA. DTMF support and RFC 2833 support: The conclusion was: If one supports=20 DTMF, one MUST support RFC 2833. Confirm consensus on the mailing = list. Security support - sips: ? https? Digest ? SRTP?: What is the minimal=20 security support to implement. To help interoperability it is normal to = require a single solution as being mandatory when having security=20 features. The discussion was split into the different parts. For the=20 MRCP channel it where consensus for having MANDATORY support of TLS. = For=20 the media channel, the initial proposal from David Oran was: when=20 transmitting media streams requiring security one uses either SRTP or=20 IPSec. Further discussion made the observation that no other place in=20 the system does there exist a requirement for IPSec. Therefore there=20 might be a reason for looking more a SRTP. Further comments was that = the=20 WG should early on contact security area advisors to have them check = the=20 proposal, thus avoiding late surprise. Another question was, how does=20 one indicate in SDP that one should use IPSec for a media stream? Define grammars one at a time: This proposal was supported by the room. PAUSE on Barge In: Is there a need to have this instead of Stop on = barge=20 in? There where no comments raised on this topic. There is two proposal for similar functionality of determining = available=20 functionality: "OPTION commands for m-lines" and "SIP Callee capability = for resource description and capability". The proposal is to check if=20 the SIP Callee method can solve everything. IF not then one needs to=20 look into SIP OPTIONS. 3PCC model of connecting with the MRCPv2 server: It was proposed that=20 using Offer-Answer will solve the problem. Invite response can be the=20 initial offer. Specification conclusion: The specification is believed to be=20 functionality wise completed. However it needs review to ensure that=20 everything works. The WG chairs asked Sarvi if was possible to have a=20 target of working group last call by end of April, which he confirmed. _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 8 15:26:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27400 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0RJw-0000E1-Mp for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:25:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i28KPqAF000864 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:25:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0RJw-0000Dr-Ga for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:25:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27357 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0RJv-0006jn-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:25:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B0RJ1-0006Xd-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:24:56 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0RIB-0006Lb-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:24:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0RI9-0008QA-LQ; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0RHu-0008I1-PI for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:23:46 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27186; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:23:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200403082023.PAA27186@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: speechsc@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:23:43 -0500 Subject: [Speechsc] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-02.txt Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Speech Services Control Working Group of the IETF. Title : Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2(MRCPv2) Author(s) : S. Shanmugham Filename : draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-02.txt Pages : 134 Date : 2004-3-2 This document describes a proposal for a Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2(MRCPv2) and aims to meet the requirements specified in the SPEECHSC working group requirements document. It is based on the Media Resource Control Protocol (MRCP), also called MRCPv1 developed jointly by Cisco Systems, Inc., Nuance Communications, and Speechworks Inc. The MRCPv2 protocol will control media service resources like speech synthesizers, recognizers, signal generators, signal detectors, fax servers etc. over a network. This protocol depends on a session management protocol such as the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to establish a separate MRCPv2 control session between the client and the media server. It also depends on SIP to establish the media pipe and associated parameters between the media source or sink and the media server. Once this is done, the MRCPv2 protocol exchange can happen over the control session established above allowing the client to command and control the media processing resources that may exist on the media server. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-02.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-3-8111624.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-3-8111624.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 10 10:18:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13906 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B15TI-0002yA-4B for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2AFICQb011412 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B15TH-0002xy-K4 for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13843 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B15TF-0001h3-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B15Qv-00011m-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:15:46 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B15PJ-0000Xq-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:14:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B15PK-0004BC-S3 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:14:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B15PF-0001Ry-9L; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B15OI-00018Z-6H for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13138 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B15OG-0000HH-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:13:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B15Nd-00003m-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:12:22 -0500 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B15MT-0007WW-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:11:09 -0500 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i2AFAa5w250900 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:10:37 -0500 Received: from d03nm120.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.82]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i2AFAaL5357092 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:10:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB1A29C@zoe.office.snowshore.com> To: "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Speechsc] NLSML Version X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003 From: Jeff Kusnitz Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:10:30 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM120/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 03/10/2004 08:10:35, Serialize complete at 03/10/2004 08:10:35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 The current draft references a May 30, 2001 draft of the NLSML spec. I've looked all over and can't find this version - the closed I've found is May 5, 2001. Is the May 5 version correct? Thanks, Jeff _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 10 13:34:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24940 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18Wp-0000M4-NY for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:34:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2AIY3fL001363 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:34:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18Wp-0000Lu-Cq for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24912 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:34:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18Wn-0006Qm-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:34:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B18Vf-0006Fs-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:32:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18Us-00066x-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:32:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18Ur-00087b-LD; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18Ui-000878-Kv for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:31:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24850 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:31:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18Ug-00065S-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:31:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B18To-0005wa-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:57 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18T0-0005dt-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:06 -0500 Received: from chimaera (pcp01419711pcs.plmthm01.pa.comcast.net[68.81.38.152]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004031018293601600hmr69e>; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:29:36 +0000 From: "Deborah Dahl" To: "'Jeff Kusnitz'" , "'IETF SPEECHSC \(E-mail\)'" Subject: RE: [Speechsc] NLSML Version Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:29:27 -0500 Message-ID: <004201c406cd$a1b2f9e0$3a7ba8c0@chimaera> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, the only public working draft of NLSML was the November, 2000 one (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-nl-spec-20001120/). There were two versions sent in May, 2001 to the W3C Voice Browser internal Working Group list(May 7 and May 30) but neither of them was officially published. > -----Original Message----- > From: speechsc-admin@ietf.org > [mailto:speechsc-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Kusnitz > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:11 AM > To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail) > Subject: [Speechsc] NLSML Version > > > The current draft references a May 30, 2001 draft of the > NLSML spec. I've > looked all over and can't find this version - the closed I've > found is May > 5, 2001. Is the May 5 version correct? > > Thanks, > Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 10 13:52:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26021 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18oL-0002Kh-U5 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:52:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2AIq9gA008952 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:52:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18oL-0002K5-Ln for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:52:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26002 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18oJ-0001lZ-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:52:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B18nH-0001Zi-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:51:04 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18mN-0001Ov-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:50:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18mI-0001xw-JL; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18lO-0001mt-Dk for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:49:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25781 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:49:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18lM-0001CU-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:49:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B18kM-00010u-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:48:02 -0500 Received: from goalie.snowshore.com ([216.57.133.4] helo=webshield.office.snowshore.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18jP-0000gg-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:47:03 -0500 Received: from zoe.office.snowshore.com(192.168.1.172) by webshield.office.snowshore.com via csmap id 839; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:45:59 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Speechsc] NLSML Version Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:45:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB243A4@zoe.office.snowshore.com> Thread-Topic: [Speechsc] NLSML Version Thread-Index: AcQGzgWZXPephjesR7y0e+Jm8NQ1RQAAcwsg From: "Eric Burger" To: "Deborah Dahl" , "Jeff Kusnitz" , "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm working on a formal liaison statement from the IETF to the W3C = stating that EMMA is "important". Any idea when it will pop out? > -----Original Message----- > From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:29 PM > To: 'Jeff Kusnitz'; 'IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)' > Subject: RE: [Speechsc] NLSML Version >=20 >=20 > Actually, the only public working draft of NLSML was the > November, 2000 one (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-nl-spec-20001120/). > There were two versions sent in May, 2001 to the W3C Voice Browser=20 > internal Working Group list(May 7 and May 30) but neither of them was=20 > officially published. >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: speechsc-admin@ietf.org=20 > > [mailto:speechsc-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Kusnitz > > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:11 AM > > To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail) > > Subject: [Speechsc] NLSML Version > >=20 > >=20 > > The current draft references a May 30, 2001 draft of the=20 > > NLSML spec. I've=20 > > looked all over and can't find this version - the closed I've=20 > > found is May=20 > > 5, 2001. Is the May 5 version correct? > >=20 > > Thanks, > > Jeff > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Speechsc mailing list > > Speechsc@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 10 14:06:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26649 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B191Z-0003C2-4C for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2AJ5nOl012268 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B191Z-0003Bn-10 for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26638 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B191W-00042e-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B190d-0003uK-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:04:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18zp-0003lo-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:04:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18zp-00035m-9A; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B18za-00031h-N8 for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:03:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26562 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18zY-0003jJ-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:03:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B18yb-0003Yu-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:02:45 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B18xe-0003Hk-00; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:01:46 -0500 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i2AJ1A0Y290076; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:01:10 -0500 Received: from d03nm120.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.82]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i2AJ19L5344972; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:01:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: <004201c406cd$a1b2f9e0$3a7ba8c0@chimaera> To: "Deborah Dahl" Cc: "'IETF SPEECHSC \(E-mail\)'" , speechsc-admin@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [Speechsc] NLSML Version X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003 From: Jeff Kusnitz Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:01:03 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM120/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 03/10/2004 12:01:09, Serialize complete at 03/10/2004 12:01:09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Deborah Dahl wrote on 03/10/2004 10:29:27 AM: > Actually, the only public working draft of NLSML was the > November, 2000 one (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-nl-spec-20001120/). > There were two versions sent in May, 2001 to the W3C Voice Browser > internal Working Group list(May 7 and May 30) but neither of them was > officially published. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: speechsc-admin@ietf.org > > [mailto:speechsc-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Kusnitz > > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:11 AM > > To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail) > > Subject: [Speechsc] NLSML Version > > > > > > The current draft references a May 30, 2001 draft of the > > NLSML spec. I've > > looked all over and can't find this version - the closed I've > > found is May > > 5, 2001. Is the May 5 version correct? > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff Ahh, the mail archive, of course - I hadn't thought of that. And there it is, the mystery version :-) I realize neither the 5/7 version nor the 5/30 version were officially published (which would leave one wondering why the MRCP spec(s) require it :-) Thanks! Jeff _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 10 14:23:24 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27776 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B19I8-00052t-Np for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:22:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2AJMuUb019389 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:22:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B19I8-00052e-KB for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:22:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27765 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B19I5-0007F4-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:22:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B19HC-000769-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:21:58 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B19GT-0006wt-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:21:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B19GH-0004wz-TH; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B19GD-0004wC-9l for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:20:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27618 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:20:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B19GA-0006vn-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:20:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B19FK-0006mS-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:20:03 -0500 Received: from vtg-um-e2k1.cisco.com ([171.70.93.55] helo=vtg-um-e2k1.sj21ad.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B19EP-0006Rm-00; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:19:05 -0500 Received: from cisco.com ([10.32.130.132]) by vtg-um-e2k1.sj21ad.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:17:10 -0800 Message-ID: <404F6A07.6010801@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:18:31 -0800 From: Sarvi Shanmugham Organization: Cisco Systems Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Kusnitz CC: Deborah Dahl , "'IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)'" , speechsc-admin@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Speechsc] NLSML Version References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090103070508010709050102" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2004 19:17:10.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[48F648F0:01C406D4] Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090103070508010709050102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I think it was because the older draft wasn't complete enough for its use in MRCPv1. But it was the best we could do short of defining a new XML for the purpose. So we based on the whatever version was available at that time. Sarvi Jeff Kusnitz wrote: >Deborah Dahl wrote on 03/10/2004 10:29:27 AM: > > > >>Actually, the only public working draft of NLSML was the >>November, 2000 one (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-nl-spec-20001120/). >>There were two versions sent in May, 2001 to the W3C Voice Browser >>internal Working Group list(May 7 and May 30) but neither of them was >>officially published. >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: speechsc-admin@ietf.org >>>[mailto:speechsc-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Kusnitz >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:11 AM >>>To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail) >>>Subject: [Speechsc] NLSML Version >>> >>> >>>The current draft references a May 30, 2001 draft of the >>>NLSML spec. I've >>>looked all over and can't find this version - the closed I've >>>found is May >>>5, 2001. Is the May 5 version correct? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Jeff >>> >>> > >Ahh, the mail archive, of course - I hadn't thought of that. And there it >is, the mystery version :-) I realize neither the 5/7 version nor the >5/30 version were officially published (which would leave one wondering >why the MRCP spec(s) require it :-) > >Thanks! >Jeff > >_______________________________________________ >Speechsc mailing list >Speechsc@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > > > --------------090103070508010709050102 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I think it was because the older draft wasn't complete enough for its use in MRCPv1.
But it was the best we could do short of defining a new XML for the purpose.  So we based on the whatever version was available at that time.

Sarvi

Jeff Kusnitz wrote:
Deborah Dahl wrote on 03/10/2004 10:29:27 AM:

  
Actually, the only public working draft of NLSML was the
November, 2000 one (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-nl-spec-20001120/).
There were two versions sent in May, 2001 to the W3C Voice Browser 
internal Working Group list(May 7 and May 30) but neither of them was 
officially published.

    
-----Original Message-----
From: speechsc-admin@ietf.org 
[mailto:speechsc-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Kusnitz
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:11 AM
To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)
Subject: [Speechsc] NLSML Version


The current draft references a May 30, 2001 draft of the 
NLSML spec.  I've 
looked all over and can't find this version - the closed I've 
found is May 
5, 2001.  Is the May 5 version correct?

Thanks,
Jeff
      

Ahh, the mail archive, of course - I hadn't thought of that.  And there it 
is, the mystery version :-)  I realize neither the 5/7 version nor the 
5/30 version were officially published (which would leave one wondering 
why the MRCP spec(s) require it :-)

Thanks!
Jeff

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
Speechsc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
--------------090103070508010709050102-- _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 10 22:44:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24078 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:44:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1H7C-000633-Fx for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:44:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2B3iA0U023245 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:44:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1H7C-00062q-9g for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:44:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24038 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1H78-0001jY-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:44:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B1H6A-0001Zv-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:43:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1H58-0001MW-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:42:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1H57-0005qo-Mg; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1H4J-0005q9-QZ for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:41:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23893 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:41:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1H4G-0001Gz-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:41:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B1H3J-000194-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:40:10 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1H2p-00010v-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:39:40 -0500 Received: from westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.32]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i2B3d9F4409376 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:39:09 -0500 Received: from d03nm120.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.82]) by westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i2B3d8ar107066 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:39:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209DB1A275@zoe.office.snowshore.com> To: "IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes - clarification/additional request X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003 From: Jeff Kusnitz Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:39:07 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM120/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 03/10/2004 20:39:08, Serialize complete at 03/10/2004 20:39:08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Eric Burger wrote on 03/02/2004 10:06:10 PM: > Proposal to specify a fixed header with a vendor identifier and a vendor > registry for the Recognizer context block: David Oran stated that IESG > has concerns with vendor specific extensions that make things fail. To > make this work, the specification needs to ensure that it is optional > and can be ignored. No new error cases should be generated by this. Also > the motivation of this was discussed, allowing some resources to work > better, however it is not required to. A proposal was: The client MUST > copy the header field to the next resource within the session. Some > discussion of making the MUST a SHOULD. After some more discussion > around the issues the following conclusion was reached in the room: > Client must copy, Server must not barf. > Server is not allowed to reject a request based on empty or non-present > header. check on this, not clear what it's saying.. Was the above text in response to my request in January to allow vendor-specific-parameters on all request (SET/GET-PARAMS, DEFINE-GRAMMAR and RECOGNIZE)? I have a related request (yes, I know, it never ends with me and these requests). When a client issues a DEFINE-GRAMMAR or RECOGNIZE request specifying an external grammar, all it can currently specify is the URI for the grammar. Sometimes that's not enough. Specifically, if the grammar is coming from an application server that's keeping some sort of session state via cookies. These cookies need to be passed from the reco server to the app server when it fetches the grammar (the same would hold true for audio files on SPEAK requests). There's no way to do this currently, so I would propose adding a "cookies" header to the relevant requests (SET/GET-PARAMS, SPEAK, DEFINE-GRAMMAR and RECOGNIZE). What does everyone think? Thanks, Jeff _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 11 08:42:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01472 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1QRM-0003wN-N6 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:41:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2BDfa0N015141 for speechsc-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:41:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1QRL-0003w8-Gl for speechsc-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:41:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01469 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:41:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1QRK-0001ce-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:41:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B1QQP-0001Vv-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:40:38 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1QQ3-0001Ot-00 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:40:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1QPt-0003qX-JB; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:40:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B1QPZ-0003pV-31 for speechsc@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:39:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01406 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1QPX-0001OA-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:39:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B1QOe-0001GF-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:38:49 -0500 Received: from dsl092-076-138.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.76.138] helo=jerrycarter.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1QOC-00017K-00 for speechsc@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:38:20 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jerrycarter.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB333771D26; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:38:19 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <003301c40752$9a358d10$cf31283e@db01.voxpilot.com> References: <003301c40752$9a358d10$cf31283e@db01.voxpilot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5B41388D-7361-11D8-A022-00039369860C@jerrycarter.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail) From: Jerry Carter Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Draft Minutes - clarification/additional request -> cookies Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:38:18 -0500 To: "Dave Burke" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: speechsc-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 11, 2004, at 5:21 AM, Dave Burke wrote: > The problem of passing the cookie jar is one of a number of issues > that has > come up with us internally as a consequence of collaborative, > distributed > user agents (specifically VoiceXML interpreters, SSML processors, and > SRGS > processors). > > The problem arises in reasonably straightforward scenarios e.g. > consider a > VoiceXML MRCP client which fetches a VoiceXML page from an app server. > App > server stores some objects server-side on behalf of the VoiceXML user > agent - a handle to these objects is identified by a "session ID" > contained > in a returned cookie. Included in the returned VoiceXML page is some > SSML > with an