IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> Fri, 02 April 2010 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@freeswitch.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 9619B3A6808 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 A1PB--96v-62 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3D53A67FC for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so355273pwj.31 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.250.6 with SMTP id x6mr283561wah.33.1270217256981; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.221] (adsl-99-58-246-250.dsl.tul2ok.sbcglobal.net [99.58.246.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm8213012iwn.4.2010.04.02.07.07.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2o6e9223711004020653jb5d773eejdea1ec98367c7ff0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:07:34 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A8DA46BC-E824-4976-9E5B-7D7B8D2A4966@freeswitch.org>
References: <05542EC42316164383B5180707A489EE1D0AA5F54E@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net> <4BAF776D.20904@acm.org> <6e9223711003281100q7e1f7ac0pd548a2ab40e95ba4@mail.gmail.com> <4BAF9E7B.1070708@acm.org> <4BB58E31.2050809@coppice.org> <617DF0128820F9458AC39149A627EE6C01A2A21146@MBX.dialogic.com> <m2o6e9223711004020653jb5d773eejdea1ec98367c7ff0@mail.gmail.com>
To: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>, James Rafferty <James.Rafferty@dialogic.com>
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 14:07:06 -0000

I think SHOULD and MAY must not be used in any DRAFT or RFC it leaves room for argument and ambiguous interpretations which lead to incompatibilities (case in point SIP).  As for DTMF, I would note that any method that works could be used and mandating anything is really outside the scope of the codec itself.  You have INFO, KPML, 2833 or In-Band.  Granted if the codec is too lossy in-band is pointless and unreliable.  And if you wish this to scale to any degree server side in-band should be DISALLOWED.  And you would think 2833 is the wise choice... but then again the MAY and SHOULD word screwed that up.

/b

On Apr 2, 2010, at 8:53 AM, stephen botzko wrote:

> Are you two suggesting that in-band DTMF is a MUST?  Or alternatively a SHOULD?
> 
> Stephen Botzko

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email