W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2012


From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:46:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3HqezDDVKUaqXwUbMxHLfkk+COqJK=M9WANS-Z1SfPbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Cc: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Agree with Matthew. We don't need to revisit this issue, we just need to
figure out where the definition of AudioMediaStreamTrack should live.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Matthew Kaufman

> ________________________________________
> Tim Panton [thp@westhawk.co.uk]:
> > All legacy signalling protocols I can think of have the ability to carry
> DTMF. Why do we want to make this a media
> > issue ?
> > Can't we just say it is out of scope an let the application's selected
> signalling deal with it?
> No. This was discussed to death months ago on the IETF side. There are a
> large number of legacy devices that require that the DTMF events appear in
> the media, not signaling, stream. Requiring gateway of media, particularly
> secure media, just to mix in DTMF events is unacceptable.
> Matthew Kaufman
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 16:47:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:30 UTC