Subject: [Speechsc] speechsc WG Internet Draft submission : draft-ietf-speechsc-protocol-eval-01.txt - Update to version 01 for protocol evaluation document

From: "Brian Wyld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 21:01:14 +0100

Hi,

Attached is an update of the speechsc protocol evaluation draft for
submission as Internet draft.

Thanks for processing this update.

A+

Brian

[Brian Wyld] [[email-masked]]
[Directeur General R&D]
[Eloquant SA] [+33 476 77 46 92] [www.eloquant.com]
[advanced solutions for telecoms and IT services]

---

From: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:55:55 -0800

some comments/questions on the document.

Comment 1:
My evaluations of MRCP were for the most part, how the protocol already met the
requirements.  And hence when it came to dealing with issues like SI/SV, they were
classified as not supported.

After reading some of the evaluations(such as web services), which pretty much does not
directly  meet most of the requirements. But seems to discuss mostly about how it can
evolve with the additon of  a NEW set of messaging to meet the requirements.

If this is indeed to basis of protocol evaluation and considering MRCP was originally
designed to be extensible for these exact needs.  Even preliminary methods and formats
for these resources were defined but not refined/implemented/tested due to priorities.
The MRCP protocol evaluation would be (T) in most of the SI/SV requirements.

Other comments:
Based on the above, the following sections will change in meeting the requirments.
In all the following sections, texts already provided, addresses how MRCP could be
evolved to meet the needs in FULL, if it does' not already meet it in full.

7.2.4. Protocol efficiency [5.4]  - would become T

7.2.8. Multiple media sessions [5.8]  - would become T

7.4.3. Grammar Specification [7.3.1] - would become T

7.4.4. Explicit Indication of Grammar Format [7.3.2]  - should be T already without any
needed changes.

7.4.5. Grammar Sharing [7.3.3] - This again would be T. since the DEFINE-GRAMMAR method
could be extended to define grammars that cna be shared across sessions, and URI
mechanism used to identify, define and refer to such grammars.

7.5. Analysis of Speaker Identification and Verification Requirements - This whole
section would then be T, since this can be achieved by additon new methods to address
these needs, and since MRCP was designed with these future extensions in mind.

7.6.3. Multiple services in parallel [9.1.2]  - T if 7.5 is extensions are added.

thx,
Sarvi

Brian Wyld wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry, but attached is an UPDATE to the draft I just submitted to take
> account of last minute additions. This draft is v0.2. I have also re-created
> the .txt to be in US Letter size format as per most IETF docs....
>
> I hope this version can be the legitimate Internet Draft for speechsc
> protocol evaluation. Please ignore the previous version.
>
> Thanks
>
> Brian
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Name: draft-speechsc-protocol-eval-v02.txt
>    draft-speechsc-protocol-eval-v02.txt    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>                                        Encoding: quoted-printable