- From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:04:57 -0500
- To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
- Cc: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsVav-DccMe_6_+s6TKmudwpdmiiey5Ky+sAAAX1Mj5kA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote: > > > On Dec 1, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote: > > > > I have already submitted the WG last call comment: > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15356.html > > > > If there is a general agreement regarding what needs to be implemented, > I can propose the text for the draft. Most likely we will need a section > regarding RFC 4733 DTMF tones. > > > > From the WebRTC client implementation point of view it would be easier > to support DTMF tones A through D then to block them, so I would suggest > going that route. If all the people who used to write modem scripts managed > to deal with this issue, I am sure JavaScript programmers would be able to > successfully deal with 4 extra tones. > > I want to be clear I don't care that much one way or the other about this > but I want to try again to explain the issue... > > A to D will often be blocked by the system that sends them from one side > to the other. So if you write JS applications that use theses, they will > work some times and not others. That is just inviting developers to shoot > themselves in the foot and no one has identified any benefit of adding A to > D yet. > > 100% agree that the IETF and W3C specs need to align on this and we should > change the ietf audio draft if we are including A-D. > I think we should move the discussion to IETF rtcweb mailing list, reach the decision on what needs to be done and then sync the IETF and W3C specs. I will propose the language change for the rtcweb-audio draft on the IETF list so that we can move forward. Regards, _____________ Roman Shpount
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2015 19:05:29 UTC