Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES.
Comment (2004-03-18 for -)
Mmm... what was that RFC-Editor policy about acronyms in titles?
This doc has as title:
Requirements for Distributed Control of ASR, SI/SV and TTS Resources
Quite a few acronyms, no?
Comment (2004-03-16 for -)
Section 3 of this document appears to be using RFC 2119 keywords, such as
SHOULD, MUST, and MUST NOT, but RFC 2119 isn't cited as a normative reference.
The RFC should be cited, or text should be added to the document to describe
what the upper-cased keywords mean in this context.
Discuss (2004-03-17 for -)
The suggested use of speech as a biometric authenticator over the Internet is
in direct contradiction of the recommendations the cited U.S. National Research
Council study . Note also the comments that biometric authenticators must
be treated as static passwords when traversing a network -- they're subject to
capture and replay. We do not permit use of plaintext passwords in IETF
I'm not (quite) prepared to insist that the material on biometrics be deleted
from the specification. But I'd really like more discussion of the concerns
from the report in the Security Considerations section -- a reader of just this
document would have no hint that the report says flat-out that this is a bad
idea. Beyond that, the document must mandate use of confidentiality
technologies for such uses.
Comment (2004-03-17 for -)
I'm a no-ob on this because I don't think it will actively harm the effort
to get this work done, but there are a lot of requirements in here that
aren't well mapped to specific use cases. The "VCR controls" noted in
4.5, for example make no sense for the speaker identification
use case given in 2.3, but those requirements are put forward as if
they applied to all use cases.
This document also trends away from the requirements to the design on
a number of cases (the xml:lang tag for multi-lingual TTS, for example).
The acknowlegemetns are, too say the least, interesting; the rules
indicating that it is a bad idea for a doc author and chair to be the
same aren't there to prevent appropriate acknowledgement when it
occurs--they're there to avoid conflicts in role.