Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call our XML variant? Is it too limiting?

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:50:39 -0400

MEDIACTRL folks,

So here's a wacky question for you...  in http://www.ietf.org/ 
internet-drafts/draft-boulton-ivr-control-package-06.txt we call it a  
"Basic Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Control Package..." and even  
have a <basicivr> element as an overall container element.

Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call it?

On the one hand, it is very self-explanatory and self-limiting.  It's  
our XML that you use to create "basic IVR" applications. Simple. Easy.

However, on the other hand, I can see two concerns:

1. Is "Basic IVR" too limiting?  As there starts to be some scope  
creep and people add more features, could we see it being used for  
more than just "IVR" applications?  Would developers NOT look at  
using it for something they are doing because they don't think of the  
Web 2.0-ish app they are developing as being an "IVR"?

2. From a marketing point-of-view, how will we refer to this in  
implementations?   My understanding is that a large reason for  
creating this Basic IVR XML was to provide an open standard  
alternative to MSML or MSCML (or even my employer's own CallXML) for  
basic situations.  As we encourage companies to implement our XML  
flavor, what should they call it?  "IETF Basic IVR"?

To give a real example, we (Voxeo) could conceivably implement this  
XML in our hosted application development platform. Then, when  
someone goes to http://evolution.voxeo.com/ and starts to create an  
application, they have a choice of creating the application in one of  
the following:

   - CCXML 1.0
   - VoiceXML 2.1
   - CallXML 3.0
   - IETF Basic IVR 1.0  (or "IETF Basic IVR XML" or... )

Is that how we want it known?

I don't know.

I ask this purely because I would like to see the work of this WG  
widely adopted and I'm just wondering if calling it "Basic IVR" is  
the right thing to do.

Just a thought,
Dan

-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     [email-masked]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl

---

From: "Steve Buko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:18:39 -0400

Dan,

I have thought about this as well, but couldn't think of a better name.
J

"Basic Interactive Voice Response" 

Here's my pros/cons.

+ What we are proposing is basic.

- We are not just doing voice.

- IVR is an application and is a specialized use of what we are
proposing.

What we are proposing is really "Basic Play Record Collect "

Steve

 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Dan York
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call our XML
variant?Is it too limiting?

MEDIACTRL folks,

So here's a wacky question for you...  in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boulton-ivr-control-package-06
.txt we call it a "Basic Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Control
Package..." and even have a <basicivr> element as an overall container
element.

1. Is "Basic IVR" too limiting?  As there starts to be some scope creep
and people add more features, could we see it being used for more than
just "IVR" applications?  Would developers NOT look at using it for
something they are doing because they don't think of the Web 2.0-ish app
they are developing as being an "IVR"?

2. From a marketing point-of-view, how will we refer to this in
implementations?   My understanding is that a large reason for creating
this Basic IVR XML was to provide an open standard alternative to MSML
or MSCML (or even my employer's own CallXML) for basic situations.  As
we encourage companies to implement our XML flavor, what should they
call it?  "IETF Basic IVR"?

To give a real example, we (Voxeo) could conceivably implement this XML
in our hosted application development platform. Then, when someone goes
to http://evolution.voxeo.com/ and starts to create an application, they
have a choice of creating the application in one of the following:

  - CCXML 1.0

  - VoiceXML 2.1

  - CallXML 3.0 

I don't know.

I ask this purely because I would like to see the work of this WG widely
adopted and I'm just wondering if calling it "Basic IVR" is the right
thing to do.

Just a thought,

Dan

--

---

From: "M. Wayne Wilson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:34:49 -0500

Dan,
 
Not a wacky question at all.
 
My company (we manufactures IVR platforms and support both CCXML and
VoiceXML), uses the term "basic IVR" to describe applications - as opposed
to platforms/mediaservers - as described in the Introduction.  In that
sense, "basic IVR" is more a characteristic of the application or dialog
then that of the platform/mediaserver that will execute it.
 
The <basicivr> element as defined is really a container of a dialog that is
being sent for remote execution. Yes, the specification is currently pretty
limited in what can be done dialog-wise, and as you speculate, that in all
likelihood may see specification creep - perhaps all the way  to VoiceXML
over time.
 
Perhaps an alternate element name might simply be <remotedialog>, as that is
what it actually is.
 
Wayne
____________________________
M. Wayne Wilson, PhD
Director, Research and Development
Interact Inc. Software Systems
Email:  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
Web: www.iivip.com
+1 512-502-9969 x116

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Dan York
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call our XML
variant?Is it too limiting?

MEDIACTRL folks, 

So here's a wacky question for you... in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boulton-ivr-control-package-06.txt
we call it a "Basic Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Control Package..." and
even have a <basicivr> element as an overall container element.

On the one hand, it is very self-explanatory and self-limiting. It's our XML
that you use to create "basic IVR" applications. Simple. Easy.

1. Is "Basic IVR" too limiting? As there starts to be some scope creep and
people add more features, could we see it being used for more than just
"IVR" applications? Would developers NOT look at using it for something they
are doing because they don't think of the Web 2.0-ish app they are
developing as being an "IVR"?

2. From a marketing point-of-view, how will we refer to this in
implementations? My understanding is that a large reason for creating this
Basic IVR XML was to provide an open standard alternative to MSML or MSCML
(or even my employer's own CallXML) for basic situations. As we encourage
companies to implement our XML flavor, what should they call it? "IETF Basic
IVR"?

To give a real example, we (Voxeo) could conceivably implement this XML in
our hosted application development platform. Then, when someone goes to
http://evolution.voxeo.com/ and starts to create an application, they have a
choice of creating the application in one of the following:

- CCXML 1.0
- VoiceXML 2.1
- CallXML 3.0 

I don't know.

I ask this purely because I would like to see the work of this WG widely
adopted and I'm just wondering if calling it "Basic IVR" is the right thing
to do.

Just a thought,
Dan

---

From: "Adnan Saleem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:08:40 -0700

I also tend to think "basic IVR" is restrictive and a bit misleading.
How about just "dialog" pkg ?

Adnan

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Steve Buko
Sent: March 27, 2008 12:19 PM
To: Dan York; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call our
XMLvariant?Is it too limiting?

Dan,

Here's my pros/cons.

 

Steve

 

MEDIACTRL folks,

  - CCXML 1.0

  - VoiceXML 2.1

  - CallXML 3.0 

I don't know.

Just a thought,

Dan

--

---

From: Song Yongchao <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:30:58 +0800

Hi Dan,

I am a newbie here. It is a very interesting question. I will look through
the draft for more information.

Best Regards,
Song Yongchao
Email: [email-masked]

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Dan York
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call our XML variant?
Is it too limiting?

MEDIACTRL folks,

- CCXML 1.0

- VoiceXML 2.1

- CallXML 3.0 

I don't know.

Just a thought,

Dan

--

---

From: "Chris Boulton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:46:10 -0000

Hi Dan,

I am not too concerned about what we call it and if the WG thinks there
is a more appropriate name then great.  Just to give some context to
name:

-          initially we wanted to stress that this was for 'basic'
interactions - if you want complex then use VoiceXML (maybe even using
the VXML package :-)).

-          Initially we really did concentrate on true IV(oice)R - the
scope has slightly expanded since to include video.

From a procedural point of view the 'document name' will need to remain
the same as it's a WG item (I'm sure the chairs know more about
procedure than me) BUT if the group can think of a snazzy  and
appropriate 'title' for the document then I can't see a problem changing
it.  We did the same with the core control framework which was renamed
from 'Sip Control Framework' to 'Media Channel Control Framework'.  So
lets offer a prize for the participant who comes up with the most
appropriate/snazzy title for the document - I'm sure Mr Burger will
sponsor (There must be boxes of BEA mugs and polo shirts lying round
:-)).

Chris.

p.s. I am not sure I agree with the feature creep comment that we will
replicate VXML (in another post).  It has always been a strong sentiment
of the group that this should not happen.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Dan York
Sent: 27 March 2008 18:51
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call our XML
variant?Is it too limiting?

MEDIACTRL folks,

  - CCXML 1.0

  - VoiceXML 2.1

  - CallXML 3.0 

I don't know.

Just a thought,

Dan

--

---

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:29:42 -0400

Chris,

> -          Initially we really did concentrate on true IV(oice)R –  
> the scope has slightly expanded since to include video.

DY> That was part of my point.  We've added video, so it's a bit  
beyond what I personally think of as "IVR".
>
> From a procedural point of view the ‘document name’ will need to  
> remain the same as it’s a WG item

DY> Of course.

> So lets offer a prize for the participant who comes up with the  
> most appropriate/snazzy title for the document – I’m sure Mr Burger  
> will sponsor (There must be boxes of BEA mugs and polo shirts lying  
> round J).

DY> Good idea! ;-)
>
> p.s. I am not sure I agree with the feature creep comment that we  
> will replicate VXML (in another post).  It has always been a strong  
> sentiment of the group that this should not happen.

DY> I definitely  do not want to see feature creep.

Regards,
Dan

---

From: "M. Wayne Wilson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:05:55 -0500

Chris, Dan
 
I also am not advocating feature creep, but was simply making the point that
the element name <basicivr> was really just a container for a dialog.
 
From a future-proofing perspective, one could choose to use some type of
container name, <dialog>, <remotedialog>,  whatever (I have no brief for a
specific name).  At some later point in time, one might then use an
attribute name (for example, dialogtype = "basicivr" with the currently
implied specification as the default) and allow the WG or its successor to
define some other perhaps richer dialog specification.
 
Wayne

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Dan York
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:30 PM
To: Chris Boulton
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Is "Basic IVR" the right thing to call our
XMLvariant?Is it too limiting?

Chris, 

-          Initially we really did concentrate on true IV(oice)R - the scope
has slightly expanded since to include video.

DY> That was part of my point.  We've added video, so it's a bit beyond what
I personally think of as "IVR".

From a procedural point of view the 'document name' will need to remain the
same as it's a WG item 

DY> Of course. 

So lets offer a prize for the participant who comes up with the most
appropriate/snazzy title for the document - I'm sure Mr Burger will sponsor
(There must be boxes of BEA mugs and polo shirts lying round :-)).

DY> Good idea! ;-)

p.s. I am not sure I agree with the feature creep comment that we will
replicate VXML (in another post).  It has always been a strong sentiment of
the group that this should not happen.

Regards,
Dan