IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements

James Rafferty <James.Rafferty@dialogic.com> Fri, 02 April 2010 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <James.Rafferty@dialogic.com>
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 3048E3A6C24 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.614
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.854, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 IkamINMM-jed for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.dialogic.com (outbound.dialogic.com [65.220.90.252]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDC53A6B9C for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX.dialogic.com ([fe80::d09:39e:8fa1:c2a3]) by pysxht02.dialogic.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:48:22 -0400
From: James Rafferty <James.Rafferty@dialogic.com>
To: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>, Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:48:18 -0400
Thread-Topic: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
Thread-Index: AcrSlIz6TfvUQu/ATeSsiqID9NFxcwAAHFjw
Message-ID: <617DF0128820F9458AC39149A627EE6C01A2A9FF9C@MBX.dialogic.com>
References: <05542EC42316164383B5180707A489EE1D0AA5F58E@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net> <003d01cad270$91acee00$b506ca00$@de> <h2i6e9223711004020749u48c533eaq720b89f374cfbe9f@mail.gmail.com> <000301cad28a$ca0c6450$5e252cf0$@de> <p2l6e9223711004021118w5fa6615cn717cba8e7b5fe57c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <p2l6e9223711004021118w5fa6615cn717cba8e7b5fe57c@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_617DF0128820F9458AC39149A627EE6C01A2A9FF9CMBXdialogicco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:22:02 -0000

+1
James Rafferty

From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of stephen botzko
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:18 PM
To: Christian Hoene
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements

I am fine with your suggestions.

Stephen Botzko
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de<mailto:hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>> wrote:
Hi Stephan,

Comments inline:


---------------------------------------------------------------
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/
From: stephen botzko [mailto:stephen.botzko@gmail.com<mailto:stephen.botzko@gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:50 PM
To: Christian Hoene
Cc: Michael Knappe; stpeter@stpeter.im<mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>; codec@ietf.org<mailto:codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
(a) "MUST NOT" means that it must fail.  Perhaps you meant "need not" or "might not"?
CH: Yes, I meant need not (or the German "muss nicht")

(b) SHOULD is commonly used in establishing requirements, and it certainly was used in MARTINI and other working groups at IETF77 in
requirements presentations with no confusion. It has a clear meaning in the requirements context (desirable but not essential) and I
see no reason to avoid its use at this phase.  There will certainly be other things that are "nice to have", and it is appropriate
to track them and consider them in the selection/standardization process.
CH: Better? "The codec SHOULD support the transmission DTMF at most transmission conditions."

I agree that language about DTMF might not need to be in the final RFC.  Though if DTMF quality is known to be inadequate, it
probably makes sense to tell people that.
CH: Agreed. The limits of the codec shall be clearly stated.

I also agree to the obvious comment that DTMF detection methods are out of scope.
CH: Agreed.

CH: Isn't time to include the MUST requirement for DTMF testing and SHOULD requirement for transmission support into the
requirements document.
Then, we could close issue #5 and continue with other things.

 Christian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email