Hi, 

>>Are we aware of real-life problems with using INFO for DTMF (or
whatever
>>else it's used for)? People have been doing it for a while (if we
wanted
>>to restrict something, it should have been done years ago...), it's 
>>fairly simple to implement - and it seems to work.
> 
>Do we need DTMF via INFO for some kind of functionality KPML (or RFC
>2833) does not provide? I'm not aware of such a case.

Regarding 2833, I guess the main idea of sending DTMFs out-of-band (no
matter if you use INFO or something else) is when you send them to an
entity which does not have media access.

>One description of a problem with INFO can be found in this historical
>chat:
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg04455.html
> 
>The explanation from the expired draft is as follows:
> 
>Under this proposal, a User Agent MUST NOT send signaled 
>digits or telephone-events using the INFO method if the event 
>was ever represented as a tone (as media). Only signals 
>originated as pure signaling MAY generate an INFO method. 
>Failure to heed this requirement will result in 
>double-detection of digits/events. 
> 
>If INFO is used incorrectly by a pair of PSTN gateways (for 
>example), the source gateway may detect a digit, send an INFO 
>request which is lost, and retransmit that request. The 
>target gateway would send the original in-band tone to the 
>PSTN when the audio media arrives, later when the INFO 
>arrives, the target gateway would render the same tone again. 
>It is quite likely that the INFO will arrive after the media 
>tone has been played (especially if multiple intermediaries 
>are involved); the same digit would be played out again and 
>this will frequently cause systems in the PSTN to detect the 
>same digit signaled twice. 

You can always mess up if you use things incorrectly. I don't think that
is INFO specific.

Regards,

Christer



> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > The only problem is that much of the INFO usages are not defined in 
> > RFCs, but that's not always the fault of the implementors...
> 
> I think the implementors knew this was not standard or at 
> most in very early draft mode when they implemented it.
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Christer
> 


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to