Re: AW: [MMUSIC] WG Last Call on draft-rajeshkumar-mmusic-gpmd-02.txt

Kreuter Ruediger wrote:

> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:fandreas@cisco.com]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2003 04:01
> > An: Joerg Ott
> > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org; Colin Perkins; rkumar@cisco.com
> > Betreff: Re: [MMUSIC] WG Last Call on
> > draft-rajeshkumar-mmusic-gpmd-02.txt
> >
> >
> > In some off-line discussions, it was suggested, that we add
> > the following
> > as a new paragraph #3 in Section 3 (which defines the "vbd" gpmd
> > parameter):
> >
> > When use of a "vbd" media format has been negotiated, voice-band data
> > SHOULD be transported using either a "vbd" media format or another
> > negotiated media format suitable for transporting the
> > voice-band data in
> > question. Examples of such media formats include RFC 2833
> > (with support
> > for relevant data modem and fax tones),
>
> Up to now my understanding of RFC2833 was, that it can be used
> to relay the connection setup negotiation tones between fax/modem
> terminals, but not the fax/modem payload. Am I wrong with this ?

No. The above was trying to capture that transport of such things as V.25
ANS and V.8 ANSam using RFC 2833 would be just fine. Do you have any
suggested wording changes that would make that clearer ?

-- Flemming

>
>
> > T.38 fax relay, and
> > V.150 modem
> > relay. Non-examples include G.723, G729, and PCMU without an
> > accompanying "vbd" gpmd parameter. Note that selection of specific
> > suitable media formats is typically done on the basis of stimuli, such
> > as the detection of an answer tone, a fax preamble and a modem CM
> > signal, which may occur at different times.
> >
> >
> > Please let me know if you disagree with this.
> >
> > -- Flemming
> >
> >
>
> I agree with this additional paragraph in general.

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic