IETF Logo Mail Archive

[codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements

"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Thu, 25 March 2010 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE683A67E4 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.567, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mt+5RNyDt-2q for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6074F3A69B0 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1Nuvn2-0007A7-2D; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:44:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: codec issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.6
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.6, by Edgewall Software
To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:44:36 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/5
Message-ID: <062.e6b7c6326118bdb330a524f018229c15@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:44:18 -0000

#5: Mention DTMF in requirements
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  requirements            |     Version:     
 Severity:  Active WG Document      |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 >> - mention DTMF in requirements
 > [MEK] some simple talk-off tests should be done to determine if
 > in-band DTMF (and potentially other call progress tones) are carried
 > in-band without sufficient degradation as to cause a DTMF detector
 misread.
 Valin:
 Definitely agree here; that was an omission from the current draft. More
 precisely, we should probably select a minimum bit-rate after which DTMF
 should be handled. I'm not sure we want to mandate that DTMF work down to
 6 kb/s, but at 20 kb/s it should definitely work. Where we put the bar is
 an open question.

 Hoene:
 Below that boundary, it might be needed to use DTMF payload format.
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2833

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/5>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email