Subject: RE: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for group feedback

From: Dan Burnett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:34:41 -0800 (PST)

Do we actually need to register application/mrcpv2 as
a media type?  It's not clear from RFC2327 that there
is any particular restriction on what strings can go
into the media format sub-field of an m= line.

As you point out, Tom, MRCP is control info and not
really a document format.

-- dan

--- Thomas Gal <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Klaus,
> 
> 	MRCPv2 is the "control" for a media server. It can
> be
> application/mrcpv2 or control/mrcpv2 but not both
> correct? Currently we are
> specifying it in the draft as application/mrcpv2,
> which would obviate the
> need for control no? Or are you proposing something
> different? I certainly
> think control/mrcpv2 makes more sense despite the
> seeming tradition toward
> using application/xxxx for everything.
> 
> -Tom
> 
> [email-masked]  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sarvi Shanmugham [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:57 AM
> > To: Reifenrath, Klaus
> > Cc: Thomas Gal; 'Dan Burnett'; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for
> group feedback
> > 
> > Which is exactly what is being done here. 
> > 
> > So we are fine.
> > 
> > Sarvi
> > Reifenrath, Klaus wrote: 
> > 
> > 	Quoting from
> > 	
> >
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-23.txt:
> > 	   Note: The media types "control" and "data"
> were 
> > listed as valid in
> > 	   the previous version of this specification
> [6], however their
> > 	   semantics were never fully specified and they
> are 
> > not widely used.
> > 	   These media types have been removed in this 
> > specification, although
> > 	   they still remain valid media type
> capabilities for 
> > a SIP user agent
> > 	   as defined in RFC 3840 [23].  If these media
> types 
> > are considered
> > 	   useful in future, a Standards Track RFC MUST
> be 
> > produced to document
> > 	   their use.  Until that is done, applications
> SHOULD 
> > NOT use these
> > 	   types and SHOULD NOT declare support for them
> in SIP 
> > capabilities
> > 	   declarations (even though they exist in the
> registry 
> > created by RFC
> > 	   3840).
> > 	
> > 	-----Original Message-----
> > 	From: Thomas Gal [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 	Sent: Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005 20:48
> > 	To: 'Dan Burnett'; 'Reifenrath, Klaus'
> > 	Cc: [email-masked]
> > 	Subject: RE: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for
> group feedback
> > 	
> > 	
> > 	[email-masked]
> > 	
> > 	-Tom
> > 	
> > 	[email-masked]  
> > 	
> > 	  
> > 
> > 		-----Original Message-----
> > 		From: [email-masked] 
> > 		[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > Dan Burnett
> > 		Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:15 AM
> > 		To: Reifenrath, Klaus
> > 		Cc: [email-masked]
> > 		Subject: RE: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for 
> > group feedback
> > 		
> > 		I agree that there needs to be an registration
> of 
> > 		application/x-nlsml (or, as an email from Tom 
> > pointed out, 
> > 		application/nlsml).  Technically it should be 
> > in a separate 
> > 		RFC from MRCP, but I can include it in the 
> > draft if there are 
> > 		no objections.
> > 		
> > 		    
> > 
> > 	
> > 	I would certainly agree with not using 
> > "application/nlsml" but something
> > 	similar to obviate confusion, even mrcp-nlsml or
> something.
> > 	
> > 	  
> > 
> > 		If "control" is already registered, do we need 
> > to do it?  In 
> > 		short, it's not clear to me in which
> > 		namespace(s) the SDP items you mention should 
> > be registered.  
> > 		Are they new namespaces for MRCP or are there
> existing 
> > 		namespaces to which the items should be added?
> > 		
> > 		    
> > 
> > 	
> > 	Isn't MRCPv2 "control"? I would guess control is
> too 
> > ambiguous and probably
> > 	why it's being deprecated.
> > 	
> > 	-Tom
> > 	
> > 	_______________________________________________
> > 	Speechsc mailing list
> > 	[email-masked]
> > 	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
> > 	
> > 	  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/x-pkcs7-signature
name=smime.p7s

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com 

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