Re: [rtcweb] DTMF resolution proposal

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, but it feels to me like
> the default duration should be in the W3C doc rather than in the IETF
> doc since it describes browser behaviour rather than something can can
> be observed on the wire. Of course, it doesn't hurt either, so I won't
> object if people disagree with me.
>
> They should definitely be aligned, if included.  (Insert your favorite
"Why not both?" meme here).

Ted

> Cheers,
>
>         Jean-Marc
>
> On 03/08/2016 07:57 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> > Unless someone objects, I think the language would be:
> >
> > WebRTC endpoints generated events MUST have duration of no more
> > than 8000 ms and no less than 40 ms with the recommended default
> > duration of 100 ms for each tone. The gap between events MUST be no
> > less then 30 ms with the recommended default duration of 70 ms.
> >
> > WebRTC endpoints limits this language to browsers and removes this
> > requirements from the gateways.
> >
> > I do not think we should add any language about retransmission of
> > the final packets since this will cause another unnecessary debate
> > (for instance I think the value of 20 ms is wrong and it should be
> > much shorter). If you want to change this please write an update
> > draft for RFC 4733 and we can discuss it there.
> >
> > Regards, _____________ Roman Shpount
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Asveren, Tolga
> > <tasveren@sonusnet.com <mailto:tasveren@sonusnet.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Would the text be crafted so that it pertains **only** to the
> > RFC4733 digit packets emitted by a browser? ____
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > Information about gap between retransmission of the final packet
> > could be useful as well and I suggest 20ms for that one.____
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > Thanks,____
> >
> > Tolga____
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > *From:*rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ted Hardie *Sent:*
> > Monday, March 07, 2016 5:19 PM *To:* Jean-Marc Valin
> > <jmvalin@mozilla.com <mailto:jmvalin@mozilla.com>> *Cc:* Cullen
> > Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com <mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>>;
> > rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb]
> > DTMF resolution proposal____
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Jean-Marc Valin
> > <jmvalin@mozilla.com <mailto:jmvalin@mozilla.com>> wrote:____
> >
> > As proposed by Roman, I think we should also include the "minimum
> > gap of 30 ms". Otherwise, I support the proposal.____
> >
> >> __ __
> >
> >> Thank you Jean-Marc; I had not thought to include that in my
> >> note, but I agree.____
> >
> >> regards,____
> >
> >> Ted____
> >
> >
> >> ____
> >
> > Jean-Marc____
> >
> >
> > On 03/07/2016 03:35 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >> We've had about 60 or so messages on this topic, and the rough
> >> consensus seems to be align this document with the limits set
> >> out in the W3C work here:
> >
> >> https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#rtcdtmfsender
> >
> >> However, there was also a proposal to slightly modify those
> > limits.
> >> They are currently:
> >
> >> "The duration cannot be more than 6000 ms or less than 40 ms.
> >> The default duration is 100 ms for each tone."
> >
> >> Based on Roman's note, a minimum of 40ms and a maximum 8000 ms
> >> to align with the ITU and RFC2833.
> >
> >> To resolve this, I propose that we ask the WebRTC group to raise
> >> their max to 8000 and, on receiving a positive response, publish
> >> this document with 40/8000 as the min and max.  If they give a
> >> negative response, we retain 40/6000.  This values alignment
> >> between the two documents higher than the reference 2833, but
> >> that seems sensible in this context.
> >
> >> If you have an objection to this way forward, please send your
> >> reasoning to the list by March 14th.
> >
> >> thanks,
> >
> >> Ted
> >
> >
> >> ____
> >
> >> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
> >> list rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> > __ __
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
> > list rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW33xoAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9agEIAIDvDjcyiWb1jrDPRiPmY2z0
> uOtzfmdg7FurvbEM4uIn5S30DrbB1i5ncl2xTmM24/jIHKAVtr/pXbMt5jH5a/F8
> XMQs5zkgK7w1tP/EykJ3f2ti5pWc18Lia8rYMzKdm0GEwcUQMemUCZ+7WrqT0N3p
> BHYPZY8B4qR/7TK+AquxcWUUZsQdPi3LaGcJwJF9+KwRKuXAQcEphUVs2SnF48+F
> IMFlhRyT097gaz5lOFS36AeyS8SO1So8W1Y2hwGMIjmuHJAMJm4vN4E8JO4R49MF
> gsvqeYimx8YZtxJww02aBN/gauUwdecol5N6xXk3haWTgdgvBJjfWzRIOsSluVo=
> =WJ2n
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>