Re: Min DTMF Gap from Roman Shpount on 2014-01-19 (public-webrtc@w3.org from January 2014)

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:54:11 -0500
To: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Mike Johns <m.johns@commsalliance.com.au>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtYMjuSWJhEnatJXSSKhwXq1U4TrY+3hwzuCPk84=FBPQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Gunnar Hellstrom <
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> wrote:

>  If you see a need for settings, I do not mind having that possibility.
> The 40 ms minimum is for detection at the receiving end, so it would be
> logical to set the possible transmission timing minimum slightly higher.
>

Would 41 ms work? On the more serious note any DTMF duration would be
correctly detected in the system where RFC 4733 is used so setting minimum
tone to 40 ms should be allowed (and useful for some scenarios)
_____________
Roman Shpount

Received on Sunday, 19 January 2014 18:54:40 UTC