Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Protpcol proposal for SPEECHSC

From: "John Potemri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:51:28 -0400

I have a few comments for your draft that will help someone not involved in
the day-to-day discussions to be able to read it and understand it better.

1. Defining Client and Server
I would suggest defining it up front and sticking with the same terms
throughout the document.

- Introduction, first paragraph introduces "client device" and "media
processing resources on the network". The latter is initially defined as
ASR, TTS, SV, and SI engines.
- Introduction, third paragraph references "to the media server".  I would
have expected "between the client and the media resources".
- Later, 3.1, you say connecting "to the media server", and that section
talks about the client finding a SPEECHSC server, and then finishes with
"and the media server" again.

I'll leave you to give some thought to it, but you might consider defining:
      CLIENT: any device or server that may leverage the media processing
resources provided by a SPEECH server.
      SPEECHSC server: a server providing one or more media processing
resources, including, but not limited to ASR, TTS, SI, and SV.
...and then only using these terms throughout.

2. Clarifying SIP Session Relationship

In the Architecture section, fourth paragraph says "MUST BE" and makes any
reader wonder why. There's no explanation. Perhaps it's the "SIP session"
that is governing this thought. Maybe it's a use case, but I assume that an
application session will have one or more "SIP sessions" with "media
processing resources". Are you implying that multiple resources controlled
under the same SIP session (obviously to the same physical resource) MUST
share a media pipe?  Later, multiple pipes and media streams are described
(3.1 and 3.3 paragraph 2)

3. Speaker Identification
2.1, third paragraph, rename to "Speaker Identification" to match SI
denotion and later reference.

4. Clarify "it"
3.1 says "It is also used to establish...". Is this meant to be the
SPEECHSC protocol, SIP or the SDP offer/exchange model?  I read it as the
latter.
Also it says "pipes" and I thought earlier it was said that that resources
must share a media pipe; should this not be plural?

Regards,
John

John Potemri
Director of Technology, Advanced Platform Group
NMS Communications
100 Crossing Blvd
Framingham, MA  01702
+1-508-271-1369
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Sarvi Shanmugham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:17:39 -0700

responses inline.

>...and then only using these terms throughout.
Agreed.

>share a media pipe?  
Correct. A SIP session between the client and its m-lines under that SIP 
session are associated with a single application session at any one 
point.  So there is no reason to establish a separate media pipe for 
ASR, SI and SV which can all feed from the same media pipe.

>Later, multiple pipes and media streams are described
agreed.

>SPEECHSC protocol, SIP or the SDP offer/exchange model?  I read it as the
It is the leter. Will update.

>must share a media pipe; should this not be plural?
Correct. I am just refering to each direction as a pipe.

Sarvi