[Standards-JIG] : Jingle: DTMF

Thomas Charron twaffle at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 15:25:49 UTC 2006


On 2/17/06, Jean-Louis Seguineau <jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net> wrote:
>
> Hey Thomas, where did you READ that "some people in other threads want to
> insert rfc2833 directly into the Jingle JEP" ?


  One would assume if you're going to infer a prefered way to do something,
it would be present in the JEP.  The inference is clear that it would need
to be included as 'the prefered method'.


> 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)


  I think this is where I was concerned.  If RFC2833 is specifically used as
the prefered method, then it is included.  I agree that it's coverage should
be minimal, but needs to be included as a pointer in the right direction
when people start wanting to use it.


> 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.


  This is nitpicking, but IAX handles DTMF right along with the audio data.

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're agreeing here.  ;-)  Honestly, if I come accross as argumentative,
it's only in what ends up being 'This is how you do it in Jabber.  Everyone
does it, you should too if you want to work within it.


> 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)


  Again, we agree.  ;-)  I was under the impression that several people had
wanted to use 2833 as 'the defacto standard to use'.  If I am mistaken, then
I appologize.


> 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?



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


  Incorrect.  Very incorrect.  1996-1997 is when it all started.  Peter came
around in 1998-1999, along with temas, eliot, etc somewhere in between.
Something that resembles what it evolved into is what we ended up with
around 1998.  Prior to that, the protocol and ideas went thru drastic
transformations.

  Actually, I'm pretty sure the first time me and Jeremie met was at the
Pulver Instant Messaging and Presence Conference in 1998.

  ;-)  I'm awake.

  Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060217/0eae78c0/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list