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

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2011/11/18 Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>:
> On 11/18/11 7:53 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>
>> So sending DTMF's over the signaling path is just better than sending them
>> over the media stream, IMHO for all the possible cases.
>
>
> Except for all use cases where the only way to send DTMF is over the media
> path, because (for instance) there is no signaling protocol which supports
> sending DTMF and/or the signaling service is no longer in-path when DTMF
> needs to be sent.

The question here is (assuming that
draft-kaplan-dispatch-info-dtmf-package becomes a standard soon):

1) Do we want to make a solution that *just* works with existing legacy devices?

2) Or do we want to make a solution that *can* interoperate with other
VoIP protocols since there are specifications for them (regardless
some devices do not implement them "yet")?

This should be clarified. But if the answer is 1), then we would also
accept any kind of insecure communication (plain RTP, no ICE, etc etc)
just to make happy old devices and vendors that don't want to invest
in making their devices modern and secure.

1) or 2) ?

IMHO 2).

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>