[rtcweb] DTMF usecase before DTMF API [was RE: The DTMF API]

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Fri, 18 November 2011 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 AC0B811E8097 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:01:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHXV5R-PBpyK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D11311E808A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAI21r0I003001 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:01:53 -0500
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:53:23 -0500
Received: from INBA-HUB01.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.86]) by sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:23:39 +0530
Received: from INBA-HUB02.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.87) by inba-hub01.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:23:38 +0530
Received: from INBA-MAIL01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by inba-hub02.sonusnet.com ([fe80::80b9:dc60:caf7:7dfc%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:23:38 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DTMF usecase before DTMF API [was RE: [rtcweb] The DTMF API]
Thread-Index: AQHMpZTjYdx5j30qJEKBGrAAKfo18w==
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:53:37 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01CE9B22@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-18cNX8xussOPXSEoFxAARu8WriL8XgxPVUXBrWhz=FFg@mail.gmail.com> <4EC28CF5.6000109@jesup.org> <D666B5A5-BF2E-46B7-B97F-06C3736E8357@acmepacket.com> <CAOJ7v-3v5Zu9ZOuL3Qqu+aEDJ4a3cqH+oJ2yj_ewOpxKe=jA_g@mail.gmail.com> <733D6CE2-2360-4688-8268-3503F7E2460C@acmepacket.com> <9A05449A-C0FB-4548-AA80-728EC82218BB@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <9A05449A-C0FB-4548-AA80-728EC82218BB@acmepacket.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.70.53.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2011 01:53:39.0009 (UTC) FILETIME=[E440B310:01CCA594]
Subject: [rtcweb] DTMF usecase before DTMF API [was RE: The DTMF API]
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 02:01:20 -0000

It will be great in case usecase are added before going into DTMF API. AFAIK, DTMF is not directly going to useful in browser-browser scenario and it is possible to pass DTMF in the signaling layer for H.323, SIP in the standard manner.

IMO, There are way to solve DTMF in WebRTC without including media level API.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Hadriel Kaplan
>Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:18 PM
>To: Justin Uberti
>Cc: Randell Jesup; <rtcweb@ietf.org>
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The DTMF API [Was: Traffic should be encrypted.
>(Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)]
>
>
>FYI - I asked an expert and he said that for the default DTMF duration
>that although 50ms is the official minimum, in practice it's safer to
>use 100ms and people often do that (or even longer but we don't need
>to).  We also need to have a 50ms gap minimum.
>So basically confirming what was already stated in other emails in this
>thread.
>
>-hadriel
>
>
>On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:13 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>
>>> [Local]MediaStreamTrack.sendDTMF(in DOMString tones, in optional long
>>> duration)
>>>
>>> ex:
>>> sendDTMF("1")  // plays tone 1 for 50 ms sendDTMF("2", 200)  // plays
>>> tone 2 for 200 ms
>>> sendDTMF("123")  // plays tones 1, 2, 3 in succession, each for 50 ms
>>> sendDTMF("456", 200)  // plays tones 4, 5, 6 in succession, each for
>>> 200 ms
>>
>> Sounds good to me, but supporting a multi-digit-string as you did
>> above reminds me that I'll have to check with some experts if this is
>ok - it reminded me there have been issues with DTMFs being too close to
>each other in time, but I am not an expert in that and it may not be an
>issue at all.  (there were issues in PSTN when multiple DTMFs were
>generated back-to-back from a saved address-book contact-entry type
>thing, but it may have only been a problem for using in-band DTMF which
>won't be an issue here) I'll ask.
>>
>> -hadriel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb