RE: [AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis

RE: [AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis_4

"Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s@rad.com> Tue, 23 March 2004 15:57 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C410E4.C870586E"
Subject: RE: [AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis_4
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:40:26 +0200
Message-ID: <27A0F290348F8E45AEF79889DDE65A52024E9EDF@exrad2.ad.rad.co.il>
Thread-Topic: [AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis_4
Thread-Index: AcQP8u87l5taC4zwSiqzA8dj+ksPyQABMWewAADsW9AAADZocAABQiZwADNCYNA=
From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
To: Moshe Samoha <MosheS@audiocodes.com>, "schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu" <schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu'.cnri.reston.va.us>, "scott.petrack@edial.com" <scott.petrack@edial.com'.cnri.reston.va.us>, avt@ietf.org
Cc: Oren Peleg <OrenP@audiocodes.com>, Yuval Nissan <YuvalN@audiocodes.com>
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Table 14 even has several "MF" tones with only a single tone!
 
The best way to ensure that there are no mistakes is to stay close to
Q.441.
 
There we see that the forward and backward combinations
are the same, except for the following exchange of frequencies:
 
  FWD  BKWD
  1380     540
  1500     660
  1620     780
  1740     900
  1860   1020 
  1980   1140
 
Also, note that unlike that which is stated in the text,
MFR2 is not always MFCR2, i.e. there are places where R2 is
not compelled. Even when compelled, there are non-standard
ways of compelling (e.g. Socotel which uses a single acknowledgement
tone).
 
Note also that not all implementations utilize all the R2 frequencies.
 
Y(J)S
 
 


________________________________

	From: avt-admin@ietf.org [mailto:avt-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Moshe Samoha
	Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 13:35
	To: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu; scott.petrack@edial.com;
avt@ietf.org
	Cc: Oren Peleg; Yuval Nissan
	Subject: [AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis_4
	
	

	The mistake is at Table 14 - R2 Backward Register Signals from
"draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-04"

	 

	 

	 

	Moshe.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Oren Peleg 
	Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:56 PM
	To: Yuval Nissan; Moshe Samoha
	Subject: FW: RFC2833 bis_4
	Importance: High

	 

	FYI

	 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Oren Peleg 
	Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:56 PM
	To: 'schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu'; 'scott.petrack@edial.com'
	Cc: avt@ietf.org
	Subject: FW: RFC2833 bis_4
	Importance: High

	 

	Please look below - it seems that some kind of technical mistake
was done in the latest draft in regarding to the MF frequency tables.

	 

	Regards,

	 

	Oren P.

	 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Moshe Samoha 
	Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:27 PM
	To: Oren Peleg; Yuval Nissan
	Subject: RE: RFC2833 bis_4
	Importance: High

	 

	I rechecked the issue.

	It seems that X-axis and the Y-axis have been replaced at table
number 13.

	If we replaced them, it is compatible to our old implementation.

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	Moshe.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Moshe Samoha 
	Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:49 AM
	To: Oren Peleg; Yuval Nissan
	Subject: RFC2833 bis_4
	Importance: High

	 

	We found out that we are not compatible with the last RFC2833
draft "draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-04" MFR2 Backward signaling.

	 

Code

Frequency 

 

Old

New

1

1140/1020

1020/1140

2

1140/900

1020/1020

3

1020/900

1020/900

4

1140/780

900/1020

5

1020/780

900/900

6

900/780

900/780

7

1140/660

780/1020

8

1020/660

780/900

9

900/660

780/780

10

780/660

780/660

11

1140/540

660/1020

12

1020/540

660/900

13

900/540

660/780

14

780/540

660/660

15

660/540

660/540

	 

	 

	 

	Moshe.

[AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis_4 Moshe Samoha
RE: [AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis_4 Yaakov Stein
Re: [AVT] RE: RFC2833 bis_4 Tom Taylor