W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > February 2009

Use of HTTP in VoiceXML3

From: Lisa Dusseault <Lisa.Dusseault@messagingarchitects.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:13:00 -0800
Message-Id: <0CF77384-2A6E-4FE7-BBC4-B99DBB28A259@messagingarchitects.com>
To: www-voice@w3.org
Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
Hi,

As a part of reviewing http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mediactrl-vxml-04 
, I had occasion to look at the recommendations for VoiceXML 2.0 and  
2.1.  I noticed that use of POST is quite underspecified!  Some  
examples:
  - The Content-Type has to be inferred, as it's not required to be  
anything
  - I assume 'next' is used to construct the URI to send the GET or  
POST to but this isn't explained or referenced

When HTTP is used to tunnel application messages, we're coming to  
understand a bunch of additional things must be said to ensure  
interoperability.  In a case like this:
  - What are the appropriate HTTP success codes?  Failure codes?
  - MUST clients follow redirects?  Or are redirects completely  
inappropriate for the server to return?

Finally, some requirements although perfectly clear in RFC2616 are  
missed more often than they're implemented in applications like this.  
For example:
  - Servers MUST handle conditional headers
  - Servers MUST handle chunked transfer-encoding

At some point, review by IETF applications review team or HTTP WG  
members would be terrific for VoiceXML 3, and I can help find  
volunteers.  I also noticed that VoiceXML 3 goes further in its  
specification of caching, and we should make sure that synchs up well  
with the work in the HTTPBIS working group on caching.

Thanks,
Lisa Dusseault
Applications Area Director, IETF.


--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---
Messaging Architects sponsors The Spamhaus Project.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 07:39:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 February 2009 07:39:59 GMT