Re: CCXML Implementation Report: asserts 714 and 715 - ISSUE-670

Petr,

We are in the process to address all ISSUES related to IR. The goal is to re-publish the CCXML-IR in a short term.
Please explicitly confirm that you accept the proposed resolution or after one week we will consider implicitly accepted the resolution. If you need clarification, please ask them very soon.

Paolo Baggia
Author of CCXML-IR Plan

ISSUE-670:

Proposed Resolution: Partially Accept

The 'ccxml.kill' event was generated by send element:
- sessionid is the target of send (no need to change)
- reason is missing (accepted)

=================================
Petr:

Thanks. We have tracked this as ISSUE-670. We are discussing this in the next few days internally and should have an answer shortly (within a week at the most). 

	RJ

---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
tel:+1-407-418-1800 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +1-407-418-1800      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Petr Kuba wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> We believe that the script 6_1.txml for testing Assers 714 and 715
> (required properties sessionid and reason of the ccxml.kill event) is
> not correct because it breaks the following part of the specification:
> 
> CCXML specification, Section 9.1:
> 
> "...however, it is legal for external sources and for events created
> using <send>  to generate standard events. For instance, it is useful to be able to generate a ccxml.kill event to attempt graceful termination of a session from an external context, or from another CCXML session. Platforms SHOULD reject any standard events that do not contain all of the mandatory properties defined in this specification, and SHOULD notify the sender of the rejection (for instance with an error.send event)."
> 
> We believe that the following statement at line 573, 6_1.txml breaks the specification because it does not contain required properties sessionid and reason:
> 
> <send target="childSessionId" targettype="'ccxml'" name="'ccxml.kill'"
> sendid="mySendId"/>
> 
> Therefore the event SHOULD be rejected and the asserts 714 and 715
> cannot pass.
> 
> Could you please look into this?
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr Kuba
> 
> -- 
>   Petr Kuba, Project Manager
>   OptimSys, s.r.o
>   kuba@optimsys.cz
>   Tel: +420 541 143 065 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +420 541 143 065      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>   Fax: +420 541 143 066
>   http://www.optimsys.cz

Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 13:53:00 UTC