Re: [MMUSIC] T.38 (Re: M-line philosophy (Re: Wisdom sought: Prioritization of codecs))

Thanks for the clarifications, and I agree to what rtcweb/webrtc should
decide.

What I was implying in my original mail is that I think T.38 support
should not be added to browsers (at least not as part of the
rtcweb/webrtc effort), and there are at least two reasons:

* It is not in any of the use-cases
* You can support store-and-forward FoIP in browsers already

But this discussion should happen in the rtcweb/webrtc space.

Stefan

On 11/22/2012 02:59 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
> Looks like that your are describing T.37 FoIP behaviour, whereas Adam
> did point on T.38 FoIP.
>
> WebRTC should firstly agree
> a) whether fax is part of this conversational realtime multimedia
> service at all,
> and if,
> b) which transport mode via IP.
>
> To a): support of F.185 (Internet fax) Yes/No
> To b):
>      b.1) T.37 FoIP store-and-forward already sufficient Yes/No
>      b.2) T.38 FoIP realtime required Yes/No ((perhaps T.38 over RTP/UDP
> or UDPTL/UDP))
>      b.3) or any alternative to T.38 FoIP realtime Yes/No
>
> NOTE: T.38 would specify the behaviour of the
> 1) PSTN gateway (as "T.38 gateway", which is always a PSTN-to-IP
> gateway) and
> 2) Browser (as "T.38 IAD" (Internet aware fax device))
> in below illustration.
>
> -Albrecht
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Stefan Hakansson LK
> Sent: Donnerstag, 22. November 2012 14:39
> To: mmusic at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] T.38 (Re: M-line philosophy (Re: Wisdom sought:
> Prioritization of codecs))
>
> On 11/20/2012 15:56, Adam Roach wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >    +---------+   +------------+   +---------+
>  >    | Web App |---| SIP Server |---|         |
>  >    +---------+   +------------+   |         | +-------------+
>  >         |                         | PSTN GW |--| Fax Machine |
>  >    +---------+      media         |         | +-------------+
>  >    | Browser |--------------------|         |
>  >    +---------+                    +---------+
>
> For cases when one client is not a proper fax machine, is not the usual
> thing that is done that the facsimile is converted to/from TIFF, JPEG,
> PDF or similar somewhere between that client and the fax machine? (And
> often sent as a mail attachment)
>
> If so, all tools are already available (e.g. File API if you want to
> store/access on the local file system, XHR or WebSockets - or even the
> rtcweb data channel for transport) to build a client that can handle
> fax. (I am probably missing something)
>
> Stefan
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic