Adam,
I agree with you on this. And yet people keep using all these different
things for DTMF, with KPML apparently last in the running.
I know my employer currently implements at least *two* non-standard
mechanisms for DTMF, plus 4733, in a number of products. Even if we came
up with a standard way that had the message conserving properties that
seem to be required, it would then it would have to be added along side
those.
Perhaps we need a discussion specifically about DTMF - what is happening
in the real world, and what the chances are for improving that
situation. (Sounds like a bar BOF to me.)
Paul
Adam Roach wrote:
Dean Willis wrote:
Future event packages would have the option of defining and
registering only INVITE dialog usage, only SUBSCRIBE dialog usages, or
both.
But even having a structure that encourages that kind of thinking is bad
hygiene. Having more than one way to do the same thing in a protocol is
the fastest and most powerful way to simultaneously decrease
interoperability and increase implementation burden.
Implementations need to either include all possible mechanisms (I just
love telling developers that they get to do RFC 4733, KPML, *and* INFO
if they want to convey DTMF), or they end up not working with everything
out there. Either outcome is seriously unfortunate.
/a
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
