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 6E0D83A63EC for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.038
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 4-fs4-Jba6qx for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:07:45 -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 C99143A62C1 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so355567pwj.31 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.187.12 with SMTP id o12mr1568754rvp.43.1270217296075; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:08:16 -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.4.2010.04.02.07.08.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:08:15 -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: <4BB5F7B6.1080808@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:08:14 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2A471ED2-AEC9-4800-B2CE-A9CE9B5E2380@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> <4BB5F7B6.1080808@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: 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 14:07:46 -0000

I couldn't agree more.  That was my first thought when the thread initially started.

/b

On Apr 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre 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.