Nathaniel opened the meeting with introductions, note well.
Chris presented an overview of dmsp followed by short demonstration.
Q&A during meeting:

dave: is this only about sync'ing multiple streams to one recipient?
chris: DMSP synchronizes multiple input/output modalities for a single user.

ted: are their candidate enablers being developed in OMA as well?
chris: The ID mentions the OMA reference architecture that enumerates 
the enablers required. The OMA spec refers to a protocol to synchronize, 
but assumes it will be done in IETF.

ted: recommends speaking to dean willis re: OMA to set expectations.
ted: would really like to see folks in OMA interested in this, 
participating in the IETF in defining.

David Oran: (speechsc chair) how are we going to approach WG charter?
David: outlines two approachs 1) simply bless what is here and move forward 
or 2) take what is done now as a starting point but revisit design decisions 
and go from there.

Jim Ferrans showed a video of a brief demo.

More Q&A:

Dave crocker: nice demo. but doesn't explain dmsp at all! I have no idea what 
the components are and how they interact...is that next?

Jim: presents viewgraph comparing widex and dmsp

Jim: dmsp and widex are orthogonal.
eric burger: paraphrases discussion at lunch: widex is about distributing GUI 
and dmsp about distributing a VUI.
eric burger: concurs with architecture diagram but suggests discussion on whether 
or not the boxes (DMSP/widex) are indeed the same.

Vlad: the point is not how you render or the end result of the UI, but how you 
are interacting between the renderer and server. If they are XML they are the 
same thing.
Jim: in terms of the level of interaction, widex
is much lower level. dmsp is higher level. For example, a voicexml
interpreter is instructed to load a document. this was deliberate...
mimimize network traffic.

Chris: One of the goals of dmsp was to handle
different types of UAs, including those that do not have a DOM.
VoiceXML 2.0 does not have a DOM. W3C goal for next version of VXML is to
have a DOM.
eric: explains VoiceXML is a language...
eric: VoiceXML 3.0 is completely different....
and will take years.
Nathanial: VXML 2.x will be out there for a long time.

Ted: suggests relaxing widex to allow interaction
with voicexml... would that fold this into the widex working group?

eric: vxml has not dom... but there is a good
understanding of the data model behind it.
chris: there is a possibility that the DOM becomes the interface between widex and dmsp.
chris: believes multimodal sync. is orthogonal
with widex which is about syncing a dom element on a server with a dom
element on a client.

eric: this is the disconnect. if the dom is "what
is the user's name" whether its typed or spoken, the dom is the same and
it can be rendered with speech or visually.

chris: true in a one-to-one mapping such as you
cite, but in multimodal you don't always have a one-to-one mappings
across modalities.

vlad: in widex you have one session, but the
requirements define multiple renderers. widex also uses the MVC.

nathaniel: if widex could support voicexml, that
may be one way. sometimes a divide and conquer approach is more efficient.

ted: sounds like there is a fair amount stuff out
there right now (voicexml) where is the pain point?

jim: my earlier comments might have been
misleading. deployed voicexml apps today are voice-only, not multimodal.
information is also presented to the user via speech/audio. With
multimodal you can display the info as well.

jim: likewise for data entry on handset today
voice is easier than keying in data.

David: don't see how that answers ted's question.

chris: clarifies the existing voicexml market
(deployed) is voice-only. the multimodal market has yet to emerge:

dave: positive you guys are doing something useful,
but still dont' understand what it is. you need to change your
vocabulary to bring this into the IETF. Need a common frame of
reference... what is being synchonized with what??

nathaniel: understand the comment, but dont' know
if there is a language to translate to.

dave crocker: no saying ietf has a vocabulary for this. we
have to cultures here... need to find some vocab that is mutually
comfortable.

david oran: struggled with the same thing in speechsc.
there is a lot you can talk about without understanding.

Dave C: agrees with ted and david. I didn't make
clear what I meant. Right now we are trying to arrive at a common
framework. I am distracted by repeated references to stuff that are not
part of the framework, but about the detail of what you've been working
on for a long time.

Nathaniel: suggests we dive into some more detail
on DMSP to see if that helps.

Chris: Agrees in general with Dave's comment, and
mentions the companies involved are targetting mutliple languages
already, but use specific languages as examples.

ted: where is the interoperatibility here?

chris: resumes DMSP presentation - presents four
abstract interfaces: Command, Response, Event, & Signal. explains the
need of binary and xml bindings.

ted: suggests using apple "movement API" as the
third UI!

Nathaniel: tries to get a sense of whether or not
this work should be kept separate from widex.

Vlad: binary messages seems to suggest they are
quite different.

ted: not clear how many people here think we are
solving a problem that really belongs in the IETF. Maybe folks should
get up and talk about this.

chris: OMA had a very focused effort (18 months
or so) on defining a multimodal reference architecture with significant
requirements document.

eric: W3C is really really bad at protocols.
eric: is there a need for a working group or is
what needed is a well-reviewed spec.

nathaniel: IBM/Motorola is not simply seeking an IETF
rubber stamp. Wanted broader input.

chris: enumerates other companies involved in OMA
MM arch. (since they aren't represented here) Nokia, Ericsson, Oracle.

ted: is there anybody in the room now, interested
in stepping up to the mic and expressing how they will support this effort.

nobody responds.

Thomas: Is it obvious this work is needed?

nathaniel: calls for a hum on this question.
nathaniel: calls for hum on people "who don't know"?
concensus: most don't know...

Jim Ferrans displays a slide illustrating how 
dmsp is used in an end-to-end architecture.

David O: I would expect the viewgraph to show
that the voice server is running on my notebook computer. If it doesn't
support that it is flawed.

Chris: Confirms the use case David describes is
indeed supported.

Barry: points out there are two audio links, one
up and one down.

Jim: clarifies these would be whatever the native
encoders on the handset are.

nathaniel: asks for guidance from the area
directors on how to proceed.

ted: go to the mailing list and see who is
willing to participate. Agrees with Dave's point that there seems to be
a disconnect between this present work and the IETF. Also agrees with
Nathaniel's earlier point that its odd there is interest in widex and
not dmsp. Recommends reaching out via the mailing lists.

nathaniel: suggests information RFC is an attractive option.

nathaniel: closes the meeting