- From: Teemu Tingander <Teemu.Tingander@tecnomen.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:55:04 +0200
- To: <www-voice@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <765E13141262784F9323D033FCCF06A0068D062B@ESMAIL3.tecnomen.net>
Dear WBWG I have found few issues in current CCXML working draft that I would like to have clarified or reasoned. I'm not currently working with CCXML interpreter so unfortunately my comments do not cover the whole document. 1. <join/> - Limiting inputs to only one is not well reasoned. There seems to be no good reason for limiting connection objects input to only one. If platform is capable of "mixing" input the specification should not disallow this. When media "splitting" is allowed with outputs the mixing of input should be equally allowed, taking in account the systems capabilities. a. For example a Connection that is joined to conference and system wants to play audio periodically to caller. This should be allowed without leaving conference. Conference object joined with dialog is capable of doing this why should the connection object be more limited. b. Limiting inputs to only one as in current WD, causes <join/> command to tear down some bridges or change their duplex without explicit request to do so. I think that this automation is confusing. If system does not support multiple inputs and <join/> request would cause that happen, the <join/> request should fail with error event. c. If this limitation is removed the complex automation logic defined in chapters 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 would be obsolete d. The clause in chapter 10.4. "Note that <join> MUST NOT be used to add a Connection to an existing two-party bridge in order to create a 3-way Conference Instead" does not make any sense. i. In current scenario proposed in current specification, A would hear C and C would hear A , but B would only hear A without ablity to speak to A (the outcome of fullduplex , <join id1="a" id1="b" /> and <join id1="a" id2="c" />). ii. Without limiting inputs to 1 and as special case 3 party network style conferencing could be achieved with full duplex joins , <join id1="a" id1="b" /> and <join id1="a" id2="c" /> and <join id1="b" id2="c"/>. On the long run, this is not very efficient way of conferencing and specification could make this opinion know but should retain from making it non-conformant. e. If the system is capable of capturing input ( for example "DTMFS") to one dialog form multiple connections, why to rule out this possibility even thou it might be quite uncommon. 2. 7.3.2 <dialogterminate/> - At just end of chapter, Current WD states "The platform MUST implicitly tear down any existing bridges to the dialog and send a conference.unjoined to the CCXML document once the media paths have been freed." This clause should only match explicit bridges to dialogs, as defined in 10.4. This should be defined in specification more clearly, unless, In context of <dialogstart/> and <dialogprepare/> and the definition of Implicit bridges in chapter 10.4, sending conference.unjoined does not follow the line. BR - Teemu
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 09:55:48 UTC