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

Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> Fri, 02 April 2010 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mknappe@juniper.net>
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 766763A689F for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.269, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 sqHyI9iHXgFU for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9393A688F for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS7X9QCV2XMNYcMkL29/JGBuK0MQoUAvU@postini.com; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:21:01 PDT
Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:19:50 -0700
From: Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net>
To: "stephen.botzko@gmail.com" <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>, "stpeter@stpeter.im" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:19:49 -0700
Thread-Topic: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
Thread-Index: AcrSbQpsirGh3cEjSOW6u2qaUrLm0gAAoG1h
Message-ID: <05542EC42316164383B5180707A489EE1D0AA5F58E@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net>
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_05542EC42316164383B5180707A489EE1D0AA5F58EEMBX02HQjnprn_"
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 14:20:44 -0000

Agreed.

Mike

________________________________
From: codec-bounces@ietf.org <codec-bounces@ietf.org>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: codec@ietf.org <codec@ietf.org>
Sent: Fri Apr 02 10:01:42 2010
Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements

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

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im<mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>> wrote:
How is the never-ending debate among DTMF signalling *methods* in-scope
for the Codec WG? I think that Henning brought this up in Anaheim only
to make sure that we test some DTMF tones. The signalling method is out
of scope for the codec itself.

On 4/2/10 7:53 AM, stephen botzko wrote:
> Are you two suggesting that in-band DTMF is a MUST?  Or alternatively a
> SHOULD?
>
> Stephen Botzko
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:48 AM, James Rafferty
> <James.Rafferty@dialogic.com<mailto:James.Rafferty@dialogic.com> <mailto:James.Rafferty@dialogic.com<mailto:James.Rafferty@dialogic.com>>> wrote:
>
>     I'd agree with Steve that are still many deployments which do not
>     use RFC 2833 or RFC 4733. In our gateways, we've had to support
>     interworking variations of tone support such as INFO and in-band, in
>     addition to the RFC 2833 / RFC 4733.
>
>     James
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: codec-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org> <mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org>>
>     [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org> <mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org>>] On
>     Behalf Of Steve Underwood
>     Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:27 AM
>     To: codec@ietf.org<mailto:codec@ietf.org> <mailto:codec@ietf.org<mailto:codec@ietf.org>>
>     Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
>
>     On 03/29/2010 02:22 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>     > On 03/28/2010 11:00 AM, stephen botzko wrote:
>     >
>     >> I would agree with this if I saw reasonable evidence that a
>     >> preponderance of gateways and sending systems provide the
>     signaling in
>     >> these RFCs.
>     >>
>     >> Since I am not sure that this is the case, I am unconvinced that
>     we can
>     >> totally remove the requirement.
>     >>
>     >> I'd also say that an encoder that detects the DTMF tones and
>     outputs the
>     >> RFC 4733/34 events would fully meet the requirement.
>     >>
>     > As former CTO of a VoIP provider, I never saw a PSTN provider not
>     supporting at
>     > least RFC 2833 (even if one of them did not declare it in its SDP)
>     >
>     > Perhaps the question can be asked at the next SIPit event.
>     >
>     Its true that RFC2833 is widely deployed. Its even true that many
>     systems have updated to RFC4733. Sadly, its also true that there are
>     still many quirky implementations widely deployed, and a lot of people
>     still need to interwork with audio DTMF.
>
>     Steve


_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
codec@ietf.org<mailto:codec@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec