Re: [codec] #5: Mention in requirements, FAX?

Perhaps we are using "scope" for two different things?  For me, "out of
scope" means outside the working group charter.

"in-band fax carriage" is in scope from a charter perspective, though I
agree it is a non-requirement for the codec.

Automated switchover is clearly outside the charter, so it is out of scope
(in my definition).

The reason this might matter:  Things that are "out of scope" of the charter
shouldn't be discussed on the list at all.  Debates about non-requirements
and requirements of course should be on the list.

Stephen Botzko

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> wrote:

> Agreed. In-band fax carriage should not be in the scope of the codec, and
> the automated switchover to mechanisms like T.38 should also be outside the
> scope of our work.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 4/2/10 7:33 AM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > On 04/02/2010 07:21 AM, Christian Hoene wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> just for the notes. Testing Fax (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax#History) is
> >> definitely out of scope?
> >
> > And V8bis? V.21? V.25? V.32/V32bis?  V.18?  SS5?
> >
> > All this stuff should be out of scope and the text should say that
> terminals
> > that needs this MUST do it out of band, so no tests are needed.
> >
> >>
> >> Christian
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene
> >> Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
> >> Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532
> >> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Brian West
> >>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:10 PM
> >>> To: stephen botzko
> >>> Cc: codec@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
> >>>
> >>> But Codecs themselves do not detect DTMF.  Thats the job of the DTMF
> >>> detector.  NOT the codec.  In all
> >>> my work with codecs I have not once seen one that knows anything about
> DTMF.
> >>> And if the codec is too
> >>> lossy inband is out of the question.
> >>>
> >>> /b
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 9:01 AM, stephen botzko wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I heard no decision as to DTMF tone encoding.
> >>>>
> >>>> As far as I am concerned, the question of whether the codec MUST
> encode
> >>>> DTMF tones accurately enough
> >>> to be detected at the decoder output (or SHOULD or non-requirement) is
> still
> >>> open.
> >>>>
> >>>> That question clearly is in-scope, and has nothing to do with
> signaling.
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephen Botzko
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> codec mailing list
> >>> codec@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> codec mailing list
> >> codec@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>