Subject: [MMUSIC] RE: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for group feedback

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:08:30 -0800

Klaus,

	MRCPv2 is the "control" for a media server. It can be
application/mrcpv2 or control/mrcpv2 but not both correct? Currently we are
specifying it in the draft as application/mrcpv2, which would obviate the
need for control no? Or are you proposing something different? I certainly
think control/mrcpv2 makes more sense despite the seeming tradition toward
using application/xxxx for everything.

-Tom

[email-masked]  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarvi Shanmugham [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:57 AM
> To: Reifenrath, Klaus
> Cc: Thomas Gal; 'Dan Burnett'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for group feedback
> 
> Which is exactly what is being done here. 
> 
> So we are fine.
> 
> Sarvi
> Reifenrath, Klaus wrote: 
> 
> 	Quoting from
> 	
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-23.txt:
> 	   Note: The media types "control" and "data" were 
> listed as valid in
> 	   the previous version of this specification [6], however their
> 	   semantics were never fully specified and they are 
> not widely used.
> 	   These media types have been removed in this 
> specification, although
> 	   they still remain valid media type capabilities for 
> a SIP user agent
> 	   as defined in RFC 3840 [23].  If these media types 
> are considered
> 	   useful in future, a Standards Track RFC MUST be 
> produced to document
> 	   their use.  Until that is done, applications SHOULD 
> NOT use these
> 	   types and SHOULD NOT declare support for them in SIP 
> capabilities
> 	   declarations (even though they exist in the registry 
> created by RFC
> 	   3840).
> 	
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Thomas Gal [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 	Sent: Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005 20:48
> 	To: 'Dan Burnett'; 'Reifenrath, Klaus'
> 	Cc: [email-masked]
> 	Subject: RE: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for group feedback
> 	
> 	
> 	[email-masked]
> 	
> 	-Tom
> 	
> 	[email-masked]  
> 	
> 	  
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From: [email-masked] 
> 		[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> Dan Burnett
> 		Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:15 AM
> 		To: Reifenrath, Klaus
> 		Cc: [email-masked]
> 		Subject: RE: [Speechsc] IANA considerations for 
> group feedback
> 		
> 		I agree that there needs to be an registration of 
> 		application/x-nlsml (or, as an email from Tom 
> pointed out, 
> 		application/nlsml).  Technically it should be 
> in a separate 
> 		RFC from MRCP, but I can include it in the 
> draft if there are 
> 		no objections.
> 		
> 		    
> 
> 	
> 	I would certainly agree with not using 
> "application/nlsml" but something
> 	similar to obviate confusion, even mrcp-nlsml or something.
> 	
> 	  
> 
> 		If "control" is already registered, do we need 
> to do it?  In 
> 		short, it's not clear to me in which
> 		namespace(s) the SDP items you mention should 
> be registered.  
> 		Are they new namespaces for MRCP or are there existing 
> 		namespaces to which the items should be added?
> 		
> 		    
> 
> 	
> 	Isn't MRCPv2 "control"? I would guess control is too 
> ambiguous and probably
> 	why it's being deprecated.
> 	
> 	-Tom
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Speechsc mailing list
> 	[email-masked]
> 	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
> 	
> 	  
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic