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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

3GPP has defined a simple DTMF Info Package, some time ago. 

I don't see it in the IANA Info Package registry, though, so I will look into that.

However, the Info Package defininion can be found in 3GPP TS 24.449, Annex P.

Regards,

Christer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
> Sent: 18. marraskuuta 2011 20:58
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Support DTMF "codec" or expose DTMF in 
> signaling? (Re: DTMF usecase before DTMF API)
> 
> 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 :(
> 
> 
> 
> > We can't choose whether to support DTMF in signaling or 
> not, because 
> >it's possible to do it even right now today on any browser, 
> without any 
> >changes whatsoever
> 
> But what is the real DTMF alternative in the signaling plane? 
> using INFO as so many devices do? such usage has drawbacks, 
> those DTMF's are not negotiated and so.
> 
> Or do you mean SIP KPML (the most exotic and complex 
> mechanism for sending simple DTMF's)? I'm pretty sure that 
> 99% of existing SIP devices do not implement KPML (does it 
> really mean that a PSTN GW should subscribe to any peer fom 
> which it receives an INVITE?? it sounds really annoying IMHO.
> 
> 
> > So if it's not too hard to add, it would be great to 
> support RFC 4733 as well, so we can let the web-app provider 
> work with even more non-WebRTC devices.  And we've been told 
> it shouldn't be too hard to add, so why do you care?  If you 
> don't want to use it in your web-app, don't.
> 
> I'm not 100% opposed to implementing RFC 4733 in WebRTC. But 
> AFAIK, instead of creating a cool API, the only worry is 
> about implementing all the requirements of SIP protocol (and others).
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>