[AVT] Re: [Rtp] Doubt in framing payload for digits
"Suresh H.B" <suresh.hebbalagere@wipro.com> Wed, 05 December 2001 08:37 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16568 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 03:37:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id DAA07575 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 03:37:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA07465; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 03:36:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA07436 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 03:36:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wiproecmx2.wipro.com (wiproecmx2.wipro.com [164.164.31.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16527 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 03:36:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ecvwall1.wipro.com (ecvwall1.wipro.com [164.164.23.6]) by wiproecmx2.wipro.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id fB58Zf111104 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:05:42 +0530 (IST)
Received: from sureshhb ([192.168.178.90]) by ecmail.mail.wipro.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GNV3TS00.30G; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:04:40 +0530
Message-ID: <008e01c17d68$0dca0a20$5ab2a8c0@wipro.com>
Reply-To: "Suresh H.B" <suresh.hebbalagere@wipro.com>
From: "Suresh H.B" <suresh.hebbalagere@wipro.com>
To: Ponraj <rponraj@banyanNetworks.com>, rtp@vovida.org, avt@ietf.org
References: <001101c17bfc$596d60c0$2008a8c0@banyannetworks.com> <3C0BED43.F8A2BBC@cisco.com> <001101c17c77$40d15e60$2008a8c0@banyannetworks.com> <3C0D8D2C.F5BD6040@cisco.com> <002401c17d59$248f0a80$2008a8c0@banyannetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:07:19 +0530
Organization: Wipro Technologies
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Subject: [AVT] Re: [Rtp] Doubt in framing payload for digits
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
I guess the answer for ur question is there in section 2. Events Vs Tones / section 4.1 Introduction in RFC 2833. And it goes like : "As an alternative to describing tones and events by name, as described in Section 3 of RFC2833, it is sometimes preferable to describe them by their waveform properties. In particular, recognition is faster than for naming signals since it does not depend on recognizing durations or pauses." Rgds, -Suresh ----- Original Message ----- From: Ponraj To: Kim Le Cc: rtp@vovida.org Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [Rtp] Doubt in framing payload for digits I got your point now. No problem for sending an event. I understood that, in the normal RTP packet 'pt' will be dynamic payload type and the payload portion will be "digit e r volume duration". Am I right now? For interoperobility with the system which is implemented such a disign(sending more than one events), I thought to have a design to receive and process those events. After seen Mr. suresh's answer I have gone through RFC2198 and understood. I have an another question, In which situation Telephony Tones(RFC2833, section 4) will come? Thanks & regards, R.Ponraj I have used RFC2833 only to send DTMF keys from an IP phone. When sending digits over, we're not concerned about placing them all in one packet or about their frequency. How are you planning to use RFC2833? -Kim