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

"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Sat, 10 April 2010 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.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 BC6783A68F1 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0qFE3BSDg++A for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4983A3A693F for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1O0TMA-0001tX-8E; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: codec issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.6
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.6, by Edgewall Software
To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de, kpfleming@digium.com
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 05:35:46 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/5#comment:3
Message-ID: <071.f2d77220909ddf362e2feaa4d861e59f@tools.ietf.org>
References: <062.e6b7c6326118bdb330a524f018229c15@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5
In-Reply-To: <062.e6b7c6326118bdb330a524f018229c15@tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de, kpfleming@digium.com, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com
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: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 05:35:56 -0000

#5: Mention DTMF in requirements
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |        Owner:         
     Type:  task                    |       Status:  closed 
 Priority:  trivial                 |    Milestone:         
Component:  requirements            |      Version:         
 Severity:  Active WG Document      |   Resolution:  wontfix
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by hoene@…):

  * priority:  major => trivial
  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => wontfix
  * type:  defect => task


Comment:

 On this thread I see 6 posters who see at least a SHOULD requirement, 4
 posters who see a NON requirement and 3 posters for which I can't tell.

 There seems to be general agreement that the use case is real, the
 disagreement is whether RFC 2833 eliminates the need for DTMF transparency
 (or not).

 I suggest a hum in July might be the best way to see where the community
 as a whole is.

 Stephen Botzko

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/5#comment:3>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>