IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> Fri, 26 March 2010 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
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 1D4A53A6928 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 uUdZ0EsY9YMP for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E237E3A6C46 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoeneT60 (ip66-104-73-132.z73-104-66.customer.algx.net [66.104.73.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o2QM4dMK027761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:04:47 +0100
From: Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
To: codec@ietf.org
References: <062.e6b7c6326118bdb330a524f018229c15@tools.ietf.org> <071.7dcdfb2cce75b15e1fc3204b931d90c3@tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <071.7dcdfb2cce75b15e1fc3204b931d90c3@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:04:39 -0700
Message-ID: <002501cacd30$5a18cee0$0e4a6ca0$@de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcrNLOLA3u3x+X9XQgaXVCc1fYPldgAAq/Uw
Content-Language: de
X-AntiVirus: NOT checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.0.0-4; host: mx06)
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, 26 Mar 2010 22:04:36 -0000

Hi,

> If the point of this issue to allow this codec to be used to successfully
> transit an IP network between two TDM networks, 

which is not the primary use-case.

> I'd suggest that out-of-
> band tone transport is far preferable to trying to ensure that the codec
> will carry the tones adequately to allow them to be detected after
> regeneration.

I totally agree. Out-of-band is much better than inband. 

Sorry for my radical view but I believe that analog DTMF is an old and obsolete technology not worth considering anymore.

Christian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email