[Standards] Rayo feedback.

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Fri Aug 14 09:26:08 UTC 2015


Again, Sorry Ben that I didn’t receive this mail at the time.

I’ve elided lots of points that seem addressed (thanks).

On 21 Jun 2015, at 20:53, Ben Langfeld <ben at langfeld.me> wrote:
> 1) Does leading with the examples help or hinder here? I found the examples at the start of one particular use case left more more confused than I think I would have been jumping straight in to what it’s trying to achieve. (No impact on going to Draft)
> 
> Would it be better, do you think, to move this example to be an intro to section 6 (Session Flow)?

I think it might well be, yes. I’d like a second opinion, though to check it’s not just me being stupid. Fippo, perhaps?

> 2) 5.1 (Actors) places requirements that these JIDs for components/mixers can only be only be under subdomains - why is this? AFAIK, this is the only part of XMPP that implies any relationship between a domain and a subdomain, and it doesn’t immediately seem like a useful restriction.
> 
> Not true. The word I used was "perhaps". This is simply to point out that full JIDs must be used to address these entities and no relationship between domains may be assumed.

I think that at least the table in 5.2 is quite explicit in requiring things to be a subdomain - I take it this wasn’t intended.

> 3) 5.1.6 Is calling things Components the most useful terminology here, when Components have a well-established meaning in XMPP (and a RAYO server is likely to be such a component).
> 
> These are asynchronous, independent resources attached to a call. The term "component" came up in the very first days of this specification and has stuck. I would be open to suggestions for an alternative term if it appropriately conveys the meaning, but one does not immediately come to mind.

Would resource work? These things seem to be addressed by their resource part in the JID. Again, I think another opinion would be helpful.

> 4) 6.1’s reliance on a <show>chat</show> seems odd at best - wouldn’t a normal available presence be better here? I’m also not sure that the requirement for it to be directed presence is waranted - why wouldn’t broadcast presence work here?
> 
> This is because the client's online status is disconnected from its availability to receive new offers in the same way as a human might be online but unavailable to engage in conversation.

If their ability to receive offers is unrelated to their presence, does that not imply that presence is the wrong mechanism to be using here? Regardless of that, if ‘chat’ is being used because things might be available but not receiving offers, I think there’s some explanation needed here. In what circumstances would a RAYO client want to be available but not taking calls?

The ‘why does it have to be directed?’ point still stands. To the service it’d be indistinguishable.

> 5) 6.1 - if you want to rely on presence here, isn’t an unavailable presence the best way to signal unavailability? I don’t think it’s covered what receiving unavailable would mean here at the moment.
> 
> See above.

I think at least the second part of the question stands - what does receiving unavailable mean?

> 8) 6.2.1 How does the client discover the available URI schemes for to/from?
> 
> No such discovery is specified, and it is assumed that a Rayo service would document this.

It’s not clear to me what this means for interoperability. Does it mean that one can’t implement a Rayo client using this XEP and expect it to interoperate with an arbitrary Rayo service, because it won’t know what the available URI schemes are?

> 10) 6.2.1.1 Use of presence for sending of notifications like this seems off. I realise this boat may have sailed, but it doesn’t seem right to me.
> 
> We had this discussion during the Last Call, and the only alternative that was presented was a dependency on PubSub, against which I believe I presented a solid argument previously.

I’m not exactly ignoring this comment, but I don’t have a sensible reply either.

> 16) 6.3 The identifier for calls here is always a JID, isn’t it? If that’s the case, it’d make more sense to be using JIDs here, instead of adding the layer of indirection of a URI with a fixed scheme.
> 
> A call URI will not necessarily always be a JID. It has been the intention since the start of this spec to leave open the option of other transports for Rayo, such as HTTP. 

In such a case, how will an entity know about the available schemes, and connect to them? If the implication is that there will need to be changes later to express how to interoperate with future systems, it suggests it wouldn’t be appropriate to push to Draft now with those changes pending.

> 17) 6.3 I think here we’re getting into the territory where presence stanzas are really not inappropriate for this
> 
> Do you have an alternative suggestion, or a concrete argument against?

I’d have thought that (for this case) just sending the message (probably as headline?) would be more appropriate? This seems to be trying to send what is logically a ‘joined’ message to the client, rather than an update of presence. Presence is generally the current state of an entity. If you use presence for ‘joined’ and you first joined A and then joined B, and so the most recent presence you received had ‘joined B’ in it, it implies under the usual XMPP semantics that your new presence has replaced the old one, and thus you’re no longer joined to A.

> 19) 6.4 "a server SHOULD represent a mixer internally using some alternative name scoped to the client's security zone and mapped to the friendly name/URI presented to the client for the emission of events and processing of commands” - I don’t entirely understand this. If it’s an internal representation, why is this important for interop?
> 
> This is because mixer names may be important to the client (e.g. "sales" or "friday.meeting"), and should not be reservable by an individual client. Thus, the name of the mixer in memory should include some reference to the identity of the client which is interacting with it. This is not important for interop, but is important guidance for someone implementing a Rayo server.

If it’s not important for interop or for security considerations (and this internal representation seems unlikely to be either), a non-normative implementation note seems more appropriate to me.

> 23) Example 44: This introduces ‘active speaker detection’, but doesn’t explain what this is (or reference an explanation), I think.
> 
> It is what it says on the can, and is a common feature of media servers.

Alright. I feel a bit uncomfortable introducing terms that I wouldn’t expect a typical XEP implementor to understand, but maybe it’s alright in this case.

> 24) "Once the last participant unjoins from the mixer, the mixer SHOULD be destroyed.” - in what scenarios would it be appropriate not to? Should this be discussed?
> 
> I have nothing to say here. If someone does, I'd love to hear it :)

I think how I phrased my question was a bit obscure. You used ‘SHOULD be destroyed’ - the use of SHOULD instead of MUST implies that there can be scenarios in which it is not appropriate to do it. As these scenarios aren’t self-evident it seems likely that this should either be a MUST, or some guidance on how a client would deal with it, and why a server would choose to do it might be appropriate. 

> 25) 6.5 "A server SHOULD implement all core components” - what are the implications for clients if the server doesn’t implement some of these?
> 
> They would receive a feature-not-implemented error attempting to execute these components, and it would limit the variety of applications that could be implemented on such a server.

How would a client discover which were supported before it attempts them? Is there a potential interop issue if a server doesn’t implement the components that a client expects?

>  30) 6.5.3.2 - I think a quick description of the necessary addressing here would be useful.
> 
> Which addressing are you referring to? The JID of the component? This is explained at http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0327.html#addressing.

I’m not *sure* that it is. I don’t think it says what an output component is, and I don’t think that anywhere else (although I’ve only just glanced with a quick search) says that ‘output component’ is synonymous with either call, mixer or server component.

> 31) Example 69 - I think this doesn’t give the units of time for the seek except in the example title and would be worth calling out.
> 
> The units are specified as being milliseconds in the schema, so this is valid.

The schemas are non-normative, so this should go into the normative text.

> 33) 6.5.4 - How is discovery of the optional/extensible mechanisms discovered?
> 
> It's not. Server documentation only.

If it’s not discoverable, how would a client written without reference to a particular server’s documentation interoperate with it?

> 35) 6.5.4.4 - When would the nomatch expect to be triggered? Presumably it’s not firing off e.g. whenever anyone says anything that isn’t a DMTF when a DMTF input is configured? Can it trigger multiple times, or is it removed after a match?
> 
> A nomatch event would trigger in such circumstances that input is received which does not match a grammar. Input for a particular modality (eg speech or DTMF) is not received by a recognizer unless a grammar is specified for that modality. A nomatch is not a standalone Rayo event, but delivered as a completion event reason, and as such can only be fired once for a given component.
> 
> These semantics are standard for speech recognizers and do not warrant specification in Rayo beyond what is already written.

I’m not (yet) convinced that that’s true - one should really be able to implement a XEP without needing implicit knowledge of how it should be implemented. I think I could write a compliant implementation as things stand that is very much not what you expect, so tightening this up seems sensible to me. Others may disagree.

> 36) 6.5.5 - I think the rules for what happens to the output when input begins aren’t defined. Although it’s implied that the output stops, does it continue again after input?
> 
> No, this is specified as barge in behaviour, which is well understood in the field of IVR, and as such does not warrant re-specification in Rayo.

I think the same holds true here as does for the previous point.

> 38) 6.5.6.1 When there are joins involved, can’t there be multiple callers? If so, how does that affect e.g. "In send mode, only the audio sent by the caller is recorded.”?
> 
> If CallA is joined to CallB and separately to CallC, and all joins are duplex, then a record component on CallA in send mode will record the same audio as is sent to CallB and CallC. If the record component is executed against CallB, then the audio sent from CallB to CallA, but not to CallC (because there is no path between B and C), is recorded.

Would a line saying this be appropriate?

> 40) are x-skill and x-customer-id defined anywhere? I think the <header…/> stuff is new here (it doesn’t seem consistent with previous use of <header…/>). What are the rules for header here?
> 
> All use of <header/> elements in signalling related commands (like accept, answer, hangup, etc) are consistent. x-skill and x-customer-id are examples only, and there is no requirement to specify them.

If they’re examples, how would a client understand them (presumably it does need to know which of these the server supports, and how to set them) - where are the possible headers documented?

> 41) 6.6.2 - if the client can’t handle the call, what’re the other options than rejecting it? (MAY)
> 
> It may simply ignore the offer and allow it to be accepted by another PCP.

Does that mean that this is effectively “MUST either reject the call, or ignore the offer to allow it to be accepted by another PCP”?

> 42) 6.8.1 - is feature-not-implemented an odd error to use for a protocol violation?
> 
> What would be the appropriate error to use here?

bad-request is probably closer:

"The sender has sent a stanza containing XML that does not conform to
   the appropriate schema or that cannot be processed (e.g., an IQ
   stanza that includes an unrecognized value of the 'type' attribute,
   or an element that is qualified by a recognized namespace but that
   violates the defined syntax for the element); the associated error
   type SHOULD be "modify”.”

whereas feature-not-implemented would be:
" The feature represented in the XML stanza is not implemented by the
   intended recipient or an intermediate server and therefore the stanza
   cannot be processed (e.g., the entity understands the namespace but
   does not recognize the element name); the associated error type
   SHOULD be "cancel" or "modify”.”

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list