After carefully review your comments, Dave Oran's,
and
the text of draft -10, I think the key relevant text
in 6.2.1 here is the following:
"The unambiguous string (first part) MUST BE unique
among the resource instances managed by the server
and
is common to all resource channels with that server
established through a single SIP dialog."
Since the example in section 4.2 uses a single SIP
dialog to set up two resource channels with the same
MRCP server, the prefix values must be the same. I
have corrected the example to use the same prefix in
the a=channel line for both resources. This
correction will appear in draft -11.
-- dan
--- santhanakrishnan <santhana at huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Oran,
>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation. It
> clarifies enough of our
> queries.
>
> But I would like to highlight the main source of
> confusion again to you.
>
>
>
> Please refer the following section from the draft
>
> 6.2.1
>
> All MRCPv2 requests, responses and events MUST
> contain the Channel-
>
> Identifier header. The value is allocated by
the
> server when a
>
> control channel is added to the session and
> communicated to the
>
> client by the "a=channel" attribute in the SDP
> answer from the
>
> server. The header value consists of 2 parts
> separated by the '@'
>
> symbol. The first part is an unambiguous
string
> identifying the
>
> MRCPv2 session. The second part is a string
> token which specifies
>
> one of the media processing resource types
listed
> in Section 3.1.
>
> The unambiguous string (first part) MUST BE
> unique among the resource
>
> instances managed by the server and is common
to
> all resource
>
> channels with that server established through a
> single SIP dialog.
>
>
>
> Here it says the prefix (First part) identifies an
> MRCPv2 session.
>
>
>
> But in the following example, the channel Id
> returned by the Server
>
> for Synthesizer and Recognizer belonging to the
same
> MRCPv2 Session
>
> is shown with different prefix(First Part).
>
>
>
> S->C: SIP/2.0 200 OK
>
> Via:SIP/2.0/TCP
> client.atlanta.example.com:5060;
>
> branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
>
> To:MediaServer
> <sip:mresources at server.example.com>
>
> ........................................
>
> v=0
>
> o=sarvi 2890844526 2890842809 IN IP4
> 126.16.64.4
>
> s=-
>
> c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12
>
> m=application 32416 TCP/MRCPv2
>
> a=setup:passive
>
> a=connection:existing
>
> a=channel:32AECB234338 at speechrecog
>
> a=cmid:1
>
> m=application 32416 TCP/MRCPv2
>
> a=setup:passive
>
> a=connection:existing
>
> a=channel:32AECB234339 at speechsynth
>
> a=cmid:1
>
> m=audio 48260 RTP/AVP 0 96
>
> a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
>
> a=rtpmap:96 telephone-event/8000
>
> a=fmtp:96 0-15
>
> a=sendrecv
>
> a=mid:1
>
>
>
> Here I wonder either the example or the draft
> statement seems to be
> incorrect.
>
> Please clarify on this.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Santhanakrishnan;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David R Oran [mailto:oran at cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:37 AM
> To: IETF SPEECHSC (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Speechsc] What is the scope of
MRCPv2
> session
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 13, 2006, at 5:01 AM, Burger, Eric wrote:
>
>
>
> > Do we need to tighten the language? Maybe
> introduce a new term?
>
> > Pick two from the set {MRCPv2, SIP, control,
media
> control,
>
> > resource control, or something else descriptive
of
> your choice}.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Please follow-up to the list with your thoughts.
>