IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] #1: RFC 4734 citation

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 31 October 2012 17:41 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 60F1921F8854 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gf5bp-blTXX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F2521F8872 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ro8so1147918pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=8R+hselR587fO7QkADKLSa9A1S367bAJDGpwDxe1zJ8=; b=cDcX42Jlf+YjhVzUJaOitL24mZIJ8qer13ZjW0FsX4wSTlSrSeQIqvP45J9MB5yE/e mpz0AG2biiujVqYCPQULiCGJwGAlfFCLhO0VtaaNS4jZhBur74OK2QSM/n33tup6E0Ts NwAL6VwUraVqQSbSeSImJs/1+emDbgfSISqwZrusBlyMQY+jbh3wS8Gyv2L/8olcp/i7 GuImKKQtV4+rqx0KcC0vz40Dsh0J4bffX4lM6NmLsK2oIRjbssXaCe7wL8APrePbWZPO /Ew8Dyj+HMgU722/XZ2hL+C4oMkr9+zxNduChIUWLxywylE+YsJdrR0MT4zvfEjCiy50 KVpg==
Received: by 10.68.235.71 with SMTP id uk7mr115450461pbc.10.1351705308417; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qj6sm2591153pbb.69.2012.10.31.10.41.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so1135487pad.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.218.132 with SMTP id pg4mr115657493pbc.100.1351705306959; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.42.8 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmX_F5HgNoZ107ru9UjAF1JbUy2mNc-Gv5v7v6YJt=tWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <066.ee8d274029b0215df9ff464ea44b5fe7@trac.tools.ietf.org> <CALiegfkSohug3__vra9R=1vMfSX46_tDvFOuJOsxjUFE54eXYQ@mail.gmail.com> <50914270.9020907@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfmX_F5HgNoZ107ru9UjAF1JbUy2mNc-Gv5v7v6YJt=tWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:41:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvetats9segKq9vyfWYMar3i4qn6Eu=H-_UeB4kGudFew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ffbaaf5a990ee04cd5e6aac"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlu5qdVLO2X4OLBnxQQi+5OSN3zEfVwhhbftkkpdW8Cp8N8iLpjxAm1LOi9/5hOD1+gocRj
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #1: RFC 4734 citation
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 31 Oct 2012 17:41:49 -0000

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> Well, as we all assume that media gateways are requried for
> interoperability with other VoIP networks, I assume it would be not so hard
> that the gateway receives the "DTMF's" via WWW means (HTTP, WebSocket...)
> and generates RTP DTMF's in the legacy leg.
>
> Anyhow I expect that it's not so hard to implement RTP DTMF's in a media
> stack, but I would not like to hear about "my PBX's does not detect
> Chrome's DTMF's". :)
>

We had an extensive discussion few months back on why RFC 4733 tones are
required. The main reason is time synchronization of audio and DTMF. If you
have an application which does something like "record your name and press
pound", and DTMF is delivered over a separate path, you end up with name
either truncated or padded with silence. In any case, I believe, there was
a group consensus that RFC 4733 DTMF tones will be supported.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email