[AVT] RFC 2833 tones payload and modulation
Tom Taylor <taylor@nortelnetworks.com> Thu, 04 December 2003 14:47 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27624 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:47:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARul7-0003BR-Gf for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:47:13 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4ElD9j012189 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:47:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARuku-00033X-Qg; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:47:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARukj-000333-3b for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:46:49 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27578 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARukh-0002MG-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:46:47 -0500
Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARukg-0002Ks-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:46:46 -0500
Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hB4EkDI04297 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from zcard0kc.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.164]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id XLSTF2V0; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:13 -0500
Received: from nortelnetworks.com (acart1hf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.129.223]) by zcard0kc.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id XLPWM9NZ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:46:13 -0500
Message-ID: <3FCF48B3.5070604@nortelnetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:46:11 -0500
X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Tom Taylor <taylor@nortelnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avt@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [AVT] RFC 2833 tones payload and modulation
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The RFC 2833 tones payload type provides for both summation of frequencies and modulation by another frequency. However, the modulation is missing a piece of information, because modulation of tones in practice isn't just a matter of multiplication. My particular example is the V.8 ANSam tone. This is modulated by a 15 Hz envelope. However, the specification of that envelope says that the amplitude of the total ANSam waveform varies from a minimum of 80% of the nominal value to 120%. Obviously the payload description has been long established and it would be difficult to add the missing information now. I see two alternatives: -- Recommend that modulation be applied the way it is for ANSam (i.e. with precisely the same 80% and 120% limits). I'd justify this on the grounds that ANSam will be the most common case. The other cases are tones intended for human consumption, so my second justifying argument is that using the ANSam boundaries might be close enough to what the tones have to sound like. -- Alternatively, recommend that the receiving gateway be aware of the nature of any tone presented with modulation, so it can construct the right envelope. Any opinions, or is this something no one has implemented anyway? _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] RFC 2833 tones payload and modulation Tom Taylor