[Standards-JIG] : Jingle: DTMF

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Fri Feb 17 09:05:27 UTC 2006


Hey Thomas, where did you READ that "some people in other threads want to
insert rfc2833 directly into the Jingle JEP" ?

Sure you can't 'have any clue' if you just let you imagination take over ;)

Maybe after all is it just a matter of wording. In the context of JEP-166
(jingle session/signaling) and JEP-167(jingle audio over RTP) I maintain
that including direct DTMF support (using tones) in JEP-166 is not the right
way to 'signal'. It is better off mentioned in JEP-167 using the proper
payload (I do not really care what the payload is called as long as it is
mentioned)

If tomorrow somebody comes up with a JEP for an IAX media session instead of
RTP, then it will also need to mention the way to do in-band DTMF over IAX. 

I have been saying all along that doing DTMF out-of-band is just a hack.
Some vendor uses it in their own proprietary extension to SIP. I'm telling
you Jingle needs a signaling that achieve the same results as in-band DTMF
and MORE. 

We are better off creating (or adapting) a richer signaling and describe it
in a separate JEP. Using the 'info' action from JEP-167 is certainly a good
fit, and I can bet whatever you wish this action was put here in the first
place because it was in SIP (and this is perfectly logical)

In term of signaling and call control, there are 36 verbs in the Asterisk
AGI that can be invoked remotely; there are over 250 verbs in CSTA to choose
from and begin building CTI applications. Don't you think this a good
starting point for a proper out-of-band signaling?


Jean-Louis

P.S. 10 years ago, XMPP a.k.a Jabber was not even in the making ;) Wake up
to reality.

-----Original Message-----
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:38:09 -0500
From: Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Jingle: DTMF - Zoep
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID:
	<30dfe2a80602161238n2e98c45crbd3e87f70ca855cd at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 2/16/06, Joe Beda <jbeda at google.com> wrote:
>
> I would think that any data could be sent in an 'info'.  If the other side
> doesn't understand it then it can just ignore it or return an error.
> Similarly, I would assume that extra elements could be included in other
> jingle stanzas.  If you want to signal the ability to do other types of
> signalling in the context of a session it seems reasonable to do so in the
> initiate/accept.
> A DTMF protocol could be negotiated (and renegotiated) in this way without
> impacting the core jingle-audio spec.  That being said, it may still make
> sense to include DTMF over XMPP in jingle-audio anyway.


  *cheer*  Exactly.  Why some people in other threads want to insert rfc2833
directly into the JEP I have no clue.


> As for rfc2833, the ability to send/receive RTP in this format should be
> specified with a payload-type of 'audio/telephone-event'.


  Hrm.  Good point.

  Thomas




More information about the Standards mailing list