Subject: [speechsc] Comments from a review of section 11

From: "Dave Burke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 21:28:11 +0100

Hello:

Some issues from a review of section 11 in roughly decreasing order of severity.

Dave

~~~

What does Speech-Complete-Timeout mean for the speakverify resource? What grammar was a complete match triggered on?

~~~

State machine broken - see previous comments to list

~~~
   
  From section 11.6:

  "Before a verification/identification session is started, only VERIFY-
   ROLLBACK and generic "SET-PARAMS" and "GET-PARAMS" operations may be
   performed on the verification resource.  The server SHOULD return 402
   (Method not valid in this state) for all other operations, such as
   VERIFY, or QUERY-VOICEPRINT."
   
   Why not restrict QUERY-VOICEPRINT, DELETE-VOICEPRINT outside of session?
   Avoids issues of deleting a voiceprint in use. 

~~~

What's the queuing behaviour for VERIFY / VERIFY-FROM-BUFFER (presumably none)?

~~~

If Save-Waveform is true and STOP is issued with Abort-Verification false, shouldn't Waveform-URI be returned?

~~~

Why not have Save-Waveform work with VERIFY in a training session?

~~~

 "a CLEAR-BUFFER request fails if the verification buffer is in" (section 11.7)
    -> Specify exactly how it does fail

~~~

    From section 11.18 GET-INTERMEDIATE-RESULT:

   "The verification resource collects the accumulated verification results
   and returns the information in the method response."
   
   -> Clarify that means? What does <incremental> mean in this case?
   -> Clarify this doesn't work for training results only verification/identification

~~~

Clarify START-OF-INPUT only generated for live (VERIFY) requests.

~~~

Which request methods can Num-Min(Max)-Verification-Phrases be specified in?
    -> Presume same as Min-Verification-Score?

~~~

State the default value for Num-Max-Verification-Phrases.

~~~

Why can't Save-Waveform be used with SET-/GET-PARAMS?

~~~

New-Audio-Channel - confirm  the header field can be specified only on VERIFY.

~~~

Add an example on training a voiceprint for completeness.

~~~

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

---

From: Srilakshmi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:15:47 +0530

Hi,

Some issues in section 11 of draft 10:

1. In section 11.6

In example for START-SESSION, Verification-Mode header is printed as
Voiceprint-Mode. This can be corrected.

2. In section 11.5 

in the first example for verification result, the voiceprint element data
are not ordered according to their cumulative verification scores. But the
statement in 11.5.1 says that they should ordered according to the
cumulative verification match score with the highest score first.

A snippet from draft 10:

11.5.1. Voiceprint

   This element in the verification results provides information on how the
speech data matched a single voiceprint.  The result data returned may have
more than one such entity in the case of Identification or
Multi-Verification.  Each "<voiceprint>" element and the XML data within the
element describe verification result information for how well the speech
data matched that particular voiceprint.  The list of voiceprint element
data are ordered according to their cumulative verification match scores,
with the highest score first.

3. In section 11.5

the element needmoredata is not explained in detail.

Regards,

Srilakshmi K.

---

From: Srilakshmi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:18:41 +0530

1. 

How does the END-SESSION behave if a request is in progress at the
verification system? 

Should the END-SESSION be graceful or ungraceful or is it dependent on the
abort model that we choose?

Here in this example call flow a VERIFY request is in progress at the
server. An END-SESSION method is called in this situation.

Now will we get VERIFICATION-COMPLETE or not?

  MRCP client           MRCP server         

   |--START-SESSION------>|         

   |                      |         

   |<--200 COMPLETE-------|         

   |                      |         

   |----VERIFY ---------->|         

   |                      |         

   |<--200 IN PROGRESS----|         

   |                      |         

   |<--START-OF-INPUT-----|         

   |                      |         

   |----END-SESSION------>|         

   |                      |         

A snippet from draft 10 on END-SESSION:

11.7.  END-SESSION

   The END-SESSION method terminates an ongoing verification session and

   releases the verification voiceprint resources.  The session may

   terminate in one of three ways:

   a.  abort - the voiceprint adaptation or creation may be aborted so

       that the voiceprint remains unchanged (or is not created).

   b.  commit - when terminating a voiceprint training session, the new

       voiceprint is committed to the repository.

   c.  adapt - an existing voiceprint is modified using a successful

       verification.

   The header "Abort-Model" MAY be included in the END-SESSION to

   control whether or not to abort any pending changes to the

   voiceprint.  The default behavior is to commit (not abort) any

   pending changes to the designated voiceprint.

This explains the changes to the voiceprint on an END-SESSION request call
but doesn't address the above issues.

2. How will the VERIFY-ROLLBACK work outside a session?

Is it the last voiceprint that is adapted that will be rolled back to its
previous state or 

is it the last session's voiceprint that is rolled back.

A snippet from section 11.6 of draft 10:

   Before a verification/identification session is started, only VERIFY-

   VERIFY, or QUERY-VOICEPRINT.

3. What should the behavior of the system be in case if it receives messages
with unwanted but supported headers? 

For example adapt model set to false in a START-SESSION method in train
mode. 

Should we take the header into account and not adapt the voiceprint or 

should we ignore it taking the train mode into consideration and train and
adapt the voiceprint or

should we ignore the request as an invalid one?

4. We can have Speech incomplete timeout header in the SI/SV system similar
to speech complete timeout header. 

5.  

A snippet from 11.4.16 Completion-Cause of draft 10:

   | 006        | out-of-sequence          | Verification operation    |

   |            |                          | failed due to             |

   |            |                          | out-of-sequence method    |

   |            |                          | invocations. For example |

   |            |                          | calling VERIFY before     |

   |            |                          | QUERY-VOICEPRINT.    

How can this scenario of "calling VERIFY before QUERY-VOICEPRINT" be an
out-of-sequence request?

Regards, 

Srilakshmi K.