Re: [rtcweb] DTMF resolution proposal

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 09 March 2016 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FAB12DCE4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:57:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OprRx1kofoGF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9673712DCE1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id n190so48237555iof.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Xxtvq8V+G8vobfe0sMOuoMh1DbVpBB93XXnbIawnd3o=; b=ztAzzDqp7UcUi4X50xKV77Zu8uZhRohZQWlSpEGTKWU9lNg/OYfNYz3Y6NTXnEntie xZhuIJYuH2FkIPD1BgUDF5Lwa1Ln040ECP8X4zkIcHw2N9t738UPqeVoh+YkYfrRImgz wqGLSHTO72Y6OqOX4N3+JjgC6mGj+D0b3LmGJqf0jozJVbty7JS6qwdI+U2CnPyIRCB/ Lcyi83J+W3K8fVN+FQ8oCNfnVSCtVBqLmoMfCwriz64CGY0IHWmCdABIUN4RHNXCj1dh jf7Z/kAUX2MByMB2Un540H7hDf/Wv4deEkH7WOzpxn0r/Lg+YfCdrv/CerOEGLPX4qgB RMmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Xxtvq8V+G8vobfe0sMOuoMh1DbVpBB93XXnbIawnd3o=; b=e2ai5yVbb9NId39X0dcCY5tTHlZyijSc7/VOgYSMZwsr1Gh5WVgoeluxGAiMJMKTAj 1Bszf+jndYdiaT8wUJPRjoHxgQDGHpZbhoh1Eyx5Doh3ABxdyRqR1YAhhT5VT7EiM0H3 HtA3bDJ8CS/7CT/Iirxujujs2wnogyAOKKJnGYg/N4LwIqZDCEEzBRgra8K6h8KjU0eQ ah8JPKHJGOyub+gIt3O++REf/s4cUMyx059Lr6mGOAvLLkztfDHWfYMalUOVYHeTxR9H RgYbsaXdeBnQ9+KfOuc5t+9OoaEkNu7oZaKlu6hRiuteNLRXt8zxdMgI+DDTUz+YBBKE nklw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKnj0ptK6ll+E3wrm5WbJ1TaD04WFT75CiR39Sko/7vO0dz/8qViKgrMBNqBZRiTQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.18.214 with SMTP id 83mr20727797ios.130.1457485024909; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com. [209.85.213.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c193sm2187746ioe.18.2016.03.08.16.57.03 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id av4so3795208igc.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:57:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.18.113 with SMTP id v17mr12284561igd.2.1457485022972; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.105.77 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:57:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <SN1PR0301MB15514F08779F54B3CD74BA34B2B20@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+9kkMANw8uPLObeGt68Rz+usObeDjQDYp-eQjp=WiCnWPByaQ@mail.gmail.com> <56DDF13F.1050505@mozilla.com> <CA+9kkMA3S2rgts+HRHqoDjzySzfq7w-mi4Ge8e_1b9wD=bEs8g@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB15514F08779F54B3CD74BA34B2B20@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 19:57:02 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsJpvGi3rp-AhCibei8vxvJ77cLf_z1b7GuJDzO2mq-Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsJpvGi3rp-AhCibei8vxvJ77cLf_z1b7GuJDzO2mq-Nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01494ff20f5af1052d932d88"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/7tHjpy201cD2Jer97o2SI1Vvvfc>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DTMF resolution proposal
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:57:08 -0000

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>
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] *On Behalf Of *Ted Hardie
> *Sent:* Monday, March 07, 2016 5:19 PM
> *To:* Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
> *Cc:* Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>; rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] DTMF resolution proposal
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> 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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW3fE5AAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9KDgH/j4bSutkSjUmvt6aTtt26qF6
> FKF2JMkrZc8pjSg6IDTq9MJradJr8WSzr27VSpedWOHHPFf5z4jDn6IpVVMyTUtP
> Jj6MvAPTyf9uB7UGq8rfA9y6az9OjChsJZ3j2/yPk7i/bnVYObg0OXOItyPA2+kA
> 7KCJAIWUiIBdfifKV8W1qre5DbUVi4iXnGIzbQ5KJIpxrO3Cxrq+vlPy7Gznc1a1
> o4B50DU6p3nBILGgCXpFwAMW5PBfco/oAOzCH90gqcM8hzEROW50LTJED/OP0K/b
> S3LMG3M+BriuAaslwW/Tj0qm3VUqtFpKaE3I0zjlxUbvfsxg/JYju2ebGSslZ7I=
> =dpJA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>