Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook"
"Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <keith.drage@nokia.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 19:21 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C73E12D943 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yKp4tz7lhEVe for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4016012D935 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id A4261FFF8C7DF; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:21:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u59JLsKx017220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:21:54 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u59JLrPH001606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 21:21:53 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.147]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 21:21:53 +0200
From: "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <keith.drage@nokia.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook"
Thread-Index: AQHRwnifz8tbdWsSj0aiQVFSDCR/qZ/hfHiA
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:21:52 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADF12A26@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <AD43431D-9FF5-4D8C-A20B-2673798D7246@brianrosen.net> <C4069D72-5C86-43AF-82D6-3749FFF0ECE7@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4069D72-5C86-43AF-82D6-3749FFF0ECE7@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/GIvQCyE8vPbsZ7IjhnfgLeEmHRY>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook"
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:21:59 -0000
I believe to bring it back you would also need to define flashhook, unless you can find an international definition of the timings elsewhere and reference it. In terms of timing, a disconnect with a timing of approximately 33% of a 100 ms cycle is a dial pulse (although I believe there are variants that work at twice this speed. European standards indicate a duration of 50 - 130 ms for register recall. Somewhere over 500 ms constitutes a hangup. I believe I have seen PBX systems that have used the period between 130 ms and 500 ms as a second form of hookflash - no access to my early notes at the moment. In more PBX related signalling systems a off hook to on hook of 140 - 290 ms can be a wink start to indicate starting to send digits. So the problems are more than one type of hookflash exists, and probably a lack of definition of the timings in an international sense. I'd also note that if we have "hookflash", why don't we have on-hook, off hook, dial pulse, and so on. Personally, as the hookflash is to gain access to something to transmit/receive digits, then maybe you should be turning the RTP DTMF channel on and off if you really want to simulate it! Keith -----Original Message----- From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy) Sent: 09 June 2016 18:59 To: Brian Rosen Cc: mmusic@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" I've see a lot of interop problems with hookflash. It's can be surprisingly hard for GWs to detect. Is there any way NENA could find a better way to do this? I'm not keen on bringing this back. > On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote: > > Back in RFC2833, the DTMF tones section, code 16 was defined for “Flash”, the signal caused by a momentary depression of the hook-switch in a POTS phone. When 2833 was obsoleted by 4733, flash was dropped, although the code 16 was reserved. > > We have a use case in NENA (9-1-1 emergency stuff) where existing systems use flash interspersed wth tones in signaling dialing events which are not interpreted by the UA that receives them, but are instead transported to a device that creates appropriate SIP signaling for the dialing events initiated. We have no other way to transport flash to interwork with our newer SIP based emergency calling systems. > > I’m prepared to write a draft that restores code 16 for flash, as it was in 2833, but wanted to hear any objections to doing that. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list mmusic@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
- [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Ted Hardie
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Ted Hardie
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Ted Hardie
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Ted Hardie
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Dale R. Worley
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Robert Sparks
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Ted Hardie
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Rosen, Brian
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Dale R. Worley
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Martin Taylor
- Re: [MMUSIC] Transport of "Flash-hook" Brian Rosen