RE: [Sip] INFO: A recap,sense of consensus and a proposal for direction.

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

Hadrial,

You wrote:
> The sticky part in my mind has always been what to do if both 
> info-dtmf were negotiated and 2833/4733 was offered/answered. 
>  Or even what to do with in-audio tones.  I *think* the 
> answer is info-dtmf should trump 2833 - i.e., if you 
> negotiated info-dtmf only do that, for a variety of reasons; 
> but with delayed SDP offers that would mean you'd always end 
> up using info-dtmf when you could have done 2833 instead.  
> And I can see the argument for "do both", and that's what 
> kpml did except it has the suppression/<pre> concept, but I 
> assumed that was due to pattern matching being inconsistent 
> with in-band event sending one-at-a-time.  But I still think 
> info-dtmf trumping would be right, because the tones will get 
> to the far end if they should.
[JRE] Performance is a consideration with DTMF, because the speed with
which the user receives a response from the server can have impact on
the user experience. RFC 2833 is always likely to get through quicker.

John


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip