Subject: [Speechsc] Alternatives to SIP?

From: "Reifenrath, Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:01:47 -0500

In the introduction (chap 1) it is stated that MRCPv2 builds upon a session
management protocol SUCH as SIP. We should clarify if other protocols can be
used. From my understanding it depends on SIP.

Also in the introduction video stream processing resources are mentioned. I
think we can strike this, because the current spec does not handle video at
all.

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

---

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:15:03 -0400

[Chair hat off]

--On Friday, April 2, 2004 12:01 PM -0500 "Reifenrath, Klaus" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In the introduction (chap 1) it is stated that MRCPv2 builds upon a
> session management protocol SUCH as SIP. We should clarify if other
> protocols can be used. From my understanding it depends on SIP.
>
Here's a suggestion. In the MRCPv2 spec, we refer back to the requirements 
document and point out which part of those requirement MRCP depends on the 
session management protocol for. We also say that SIP meets those 
requirements and hence it is mandatory to implement to ensure 
interoperability among systems supporting MRCPv2. If people further wish to 
say that other session management protocols MAY be used by prior agreement, 
I would have no objection to that.

> Also in the introduction video stream processing resources are mentioned.
> I think we can strike this, because the current spec does not handle
> video at all.
>
Ok by me.

Dave.