RE: [AVT] Question on RFC 2833

Thank you for your reply! I also interpreted and planned to implement the same way, but wanted to check with other engineers for maximum interoperability.

Regards,

Rupesh

---

Rupesh W Kumbhare

Software Specialist

DSP & Multimedia Group,

Wipro Technologies

OFF: 301-515-3783

From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:5N00:EXCH] [mailto:taylor at americasm01.nt.com]
Sent: Sat 2/25/2006 7:59 PM
To: Rupesh W Kumbhare (WT01 - VLSI Services)
Cc: avt at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] Question on RFC 2833

I'm not an implementor, just an editor, so you can weigh my opinions
accordingly.

My view on 1) is that the full duration should be played out. That's the
point of including cumulative duration in every packet -- you can lose
one and still have all the information you need. Of course, this also
means you are playing with a bit of a lag, but that is probably OK for DTMF.

My view of 2) is "yes" -- this is perfectly legal within the payload rules.

rupesh.kumbhare at wipro.com wrote:
> I have a question regarding DTMF relay implementation using RFC2833.
>
>
> (1) If the DTMF receiver does not receive first DTMF packet but
> receives directly an end-bit packet, should it generate full DTMF
> tone? Typically it happens if tone is short say 40ms.
>
> (2) Is it allowed to send a DTMF packet with Marker bit and end-bit
> set if the tone is of short duration (typically shorter than the
> packetization interval)? Should the receiver honor such packet with
> full genertion of tone.
>
> I would appreciate views on this one from other designers.
>
> Thanks & Regards, Rupesh
>
> -- Rupesh W Kumbhare Software Specialist DSP & Multimedia Group,
> Wipro Technologies OFF: 301-515-3783
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport
> Working Group avt at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt