[Standards-JIG] Jingle: DTMF

Simon Guindon simon.guindon at tomahawk.ca
Tue Feb 14 22:19:03 UTC 2006


I'm an advocate of doing it over XMPP because I think this makes the
Jingle gateway more flexible, especially in the sense of other protocols
that may not support DTMF, which allows the jabber client to still
navigate IVR's.
 
One example comes to mind, lets pretend protocol X gets a jingle
gateway, and there is a voicemail service running on the server. Even a
non-DTMF capable protocol can now navigate IVR's.
 
On the flip side, I get a bit skeptical as well after thinking a bit
about Joe's thoughts. Can the INFO packets ever come out of order?
 
Also on the flip side.What in the case of a sip phone calling this
jingle gateway to check voicemail. The jingle gateway will need to
handle SIP's DTMF and pass the INFO messages to the voicemail "server
component" which speaks Jingle.
 
What are everyones thoughts? I hope I was clear what I was meaning to
get across.
 
Thanks and take care,
Simon
 
-------------------------------------------------------
Simon Guindon
Tomahawk Technologies Inc.
simon.guindon at tomahawk.ca
www.tomahawk.ca
-------------------------------------------------------
 

________________________________

From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org
[mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Joe Beda
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:42 PM
To: Jabber protocol discussion list
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Jingle: DTMF


I'm not a fan of this proposal but I'm okay with this as long as it
isn't required.  The result would be two ways to get DTMF to a client:
XMPP and embedded in RTP.  I'd prefer that we only have one way.

I would be strongly against *requiring* DTMF to be handled in the XMPP
because:
* When gatewaying to other protocols, this would require the media to be
proxied/relayed in order to put the DTMF onto the signalling channel.
This could raise the bandwidth cost of doing gatewaying dramatically.
* Keep in mind that the latencies on the XMPP connection could be much
higher than the latency on the RTP/P2P channel.  In situations where the
timing of the DTMF is critical this could cause problems.

Joe


On 2/14/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote: 

	-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
	Hash: SHA1
	
	I just read through the older thread on Jingle with PBX etc. My
sense
	right now is that including DTMF [1] as part of the Jingle audio
media
	description format (JEP-0167) would be best. So to send DTMF
codes to 
	the other party (which might be an Asterisk server, a voicemail
box, an
	IVR system, or what have you), we'd send Jingle "info" messages
with a
	special Jingle audio payload. Here's an example:
	
	<iq from=' juliet at capulet.com' to='voicemail.shakespeare.lit'
type='set'>
	  <jingle xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle'
	          action='info' 
	          initiator='romeo at montague.net/orchard'
	          sid='a73sjjvkla37jfea'>
	    <dtmf xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle/info/audio '
	          code='1234'/>
	  </jingle>
	</iq>
	
	If a gateway needs to convert that into audio tones or whatever
(e.g.,
	RFC 2833 format for RTP), it could do so, but we'd never send
those as 
	audio tones over XMPP.
	
	Thoughts?
	
	Peter
	
	[1] http://margo.student.utwente.nl/el/phone/dtmf.htm is a nice
page
	about DTMF if you're wondering what it is. :-) 
	
	
	-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
	Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
	Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
	
	iD8DBQFD8j82NF1RSzyt3NURAgL2AJ91Xw6SZFKSzX/h34/LPNU29wo/ZgCaAok1

	kB4QMSsnH624WSVydOGCPA0=
	=zT9M
	-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
	
	
	


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060214/58f93f7e/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list