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

stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Fri, 02 April 2010 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@gmail.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 E412D3A67DF for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 hfZCuxYgi9Mo for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5CB3A67FA for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 06:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwj15 with SMTP id 15so1388274gwj.31 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gz1j5U62TLm890sxteus2ctMmyXCIXVTClSOmvx1WGk=; b=Ao0Wiq+fyKM6cd1msfeRQPMwXVGemrCt84X2Dr7NxMV+UbncBmy3vUtmCpdwB3jDYr xqSBzIua+a/TMpTHl/rDeImSnT1srsn6vKHwQ49BQ1fIFmmq5iVDLgC07yM/FCrBMHwI K/qUcOiOLCu93RYTUe9D4tvh0DysjP3FtTz+c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=p4eVIBsWG+RvV3P0TruSmpd3fpEEvDcjiSBEdMbRee8CMBy45trnbnjycuttyNlXZF cCxPDQxZ+Uh7AUOGU+XTaMucBpgA4gj7CWD7GShxVcFeAkwLOzjeDK/z5IQYC0K9A3lG wxhW15UB/VPAt765ltIlVXWcC8WAAqNubAoR4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.85.133 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <617DF0128820F9458AC39149A627EE6C01A2A21146@MBX.dialogic.com>
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>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:53:55 -0400
Received: by 10.100.235.11 with SMTP id i11mr5677613anh.128.1270216435932; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <m2o6e9223711004020653jb5d773eejdea1ec98367c7ff0@mail.gmail.com>
From: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: James Rafferty <James.Rafferty@dialogic.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636b2b05473a2f50483414f63"
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 13:53:28 -0000

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>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] On Behalf Of
> Steve Underwood
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:27 AM
> To: 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>