Re: [rtcweb] Support DTMF "codec" or expose DTMF in signaling? (Re: DTMF usecase before DTMF API)

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 2011/11/18 Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>:
> > Unfortunately draft-kaplan-dispatch-info-dtmf-package will never become
> a standard.  I presented it a couple IETF meetings ago, and was basically
> told to go away and never bring it back to the IETF.  (despite the fact it
> was the main use-case and motivation for creating INFO packages to begin
> with)
>
> Opss... then, why do we need the "SIP INFO Method and Package
> Framework"? just for having a generic "framework"? for nothing?
> It's hard to believe :(
>
>
This whole framework was shut down because it was not usable for some
applications (record and press # type) due to luck of synchronization with
media stream. Since it did not work for some applications it was ruled to
be generally undesirable. Kind of similar to the SRTP discussion we were
having on this list. The result is interesting too: whoever needed DTMF
over INFO ignored that it is not a standard and used it anyway (since it
has applications were it is desirable, like calling cards).

Instead of DTMF specific API, I would prefer a mechanism for CODEC specific
extensions and implement DTMF this way.
_____________
Roman Shpount