Re: [codec] #5: Mention in requirements, FAX?

Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> Fri, 02 April 2010 15:03 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 0BB9C3A6980 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.332, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, 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 xK+317YD3a+k for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955AB3A6951 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS7YHWTerP9MpUa4iV7Og3L0qRStGF+B3@postini.com; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:03:56 PDT
Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:01:36 -0700
From: Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net>
To: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:01:29 -0700
Thread-Topic: [codec] #5: Mention in requirements, FAX?
Thread-Index: AcrSdQl93mGI3royQ9uffMIzRowu2QAAFYV8
Message-ID: <C7DB54D9.13E44%mknappe@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2z6e9223711004020759h4907d7a4j574b9bba509358c2@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.3.0.091002
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention in requirements, FAX?
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 15:03:23 -0000

Yes, excellent clarification, agreed.

Mike


On 4/2/10 7:59 AM, "stephen botzko" <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps we are using "scope" for two different things?  For me, "out of scope" means outside the working group charter.

"in-band fax carriage" is in scope from a charter perspective, though I agree it is a non-requirement for the codec.

Automated switchover is clearly outside the charter, so it is out of scope (in my definition).

The reason this might matter:  Things that are "out of scope" of the charter shouldn't be discussed on the list at all.  Debates about non-requirements and requirements of course should be on the list.

Stephen Botzko


On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> wrote:
Agreed. In-band fax carriage should not be in the scope of the codec, and
the automated switchover to mechanisms like T.38 should also be outside the
scope of our work.

Mike


On 4/2/10 7:33 AM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug@acm.org> wrote:

> On 04/02/2010 07:21 AM, Christian Hoene wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> just for the notes. Testing Fax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax#History) is
>> definitely out of scope?
>
> And V8bis? V.21? V.25? V.32/V32bis?  V.18?  SS5?
>
> All this stuff should be out of scope and the text should say that terminals
> that needs this MUST do it out of band, so no tests are needed.
>
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Brian West
>>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:10 PM
>>> To: stephen botzko
>>> Cc: codec@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
>>>
>>> But Codecs themselves do not detect DTMF.  Thats the job of the DTMF
>>> detector.  NOT the codec.  In all
>>> my work with codecs I have not once seen one that knows anything about DTMF.
>>> And if the codec is too
>>> lossy inband is out of the question.
>>>
>>> /b
>>>
>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 9:01 AM, stephen botzko wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>

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