- From: Dave Renshaw <dave_renshaw@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:17:01 +0100
- To: www-voice@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFFB2663B5.534F3C5B-ON80256F2C.004D662F-80256F2C.004E2A43@uk.ibm.com>
The following comments from IBM on the April 30th CCXML LCWD are being submitted to the public mail address (as requested by the CCXML subgroup) to ensure resolution tracking. 3.6: Session Life-Cycle In all the examples shown there is an assumption that the CCXML application will terminate the session by executing an <exit> element. What is acceptable behaviour for a system when dealing with an application that omits to do this? Such applications are clearly erroneous but would effectively constitute a denial of service by tieing up system resources with inactive sessions. Should, or is it acceptable, for a implementation to issue a ccxml.kill event against a session that has no connections, no events in its queue, and has no outstanding <fetch> requests? The current life-cycle descriptions do not document the possibility of a session handling multiple inbound calls, the so called "master session" model. Currently the only documented way to handle calls is by initiating a new session, the so called "multi-session" model. IBM sees value in CCXML specifying the "master session" model as an accepted implementation method. It should be possible to configure a CCXML implementation to service inbound calls from a number of telephony resources via a single session. For applications such as simple inbound call to dialog routing as commonly implemented on IVRs the "master session" model is a simple and efficient mode of operation. We acknowledge that for more complex application the use of the full range of the CCXML constructs including the state variable and other document level variables is required and in this case a "multi-session" model is appropriate. Restricting the specification to just the "multi-session" model imposes additional computation overhead on simple applications. 9.4.5.4: Errors While Handling Error Events The text as it stands seems somewhat draconian. It is conceivable that a CCXML document could attempt to recover from an error condition but encounter another error condition in the process but still recover. As specified the interpreter must terminate for any error encountered while dealing with an error event. We would suggest this section be revised to suggest termination of a CCXML session if a loop is detected i.e. a recurrent identical error condition or detectable pattern, rather than any error. 10.2.1: Connection State The state diagram only shows the availability of media streams in the CONNECTED state. This does not allow for the early media situation where media flows can occur while the connection is in alerting or transitioning between alerting and connected. 11: Complex Examples The CCXML examples are unreadable if the specification is printed as the left-hand end of many lines is truncated. Cheers Dave David S. Renshaw MBCS WebSphere Voice Architect IBM Pervasive Computing division tel: +44 1962 815517 fax: +44 1962 817999
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:35:13 UTC