Subject: Re: [codec] #5: Mention DTMF in requirements

From: "codec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 05:01:24 -0000

#5: Mention DTMF in requirements
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  requirements            |     Version:     
 Severity:  Active WG Document      |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Comment(by hoene@…):

 No consensus until now.
 I see do opinions on the mailing list:

 a) I think DTMF should be ignored entirely as far as requirements.  If
 someone wishes to perform tests, they are welcome to do so and present
 results, but there is no need to require anything.
 There are many different machine-to-machine communications systems that
 have been designed to operate over channels that also carry audio.  We
 should not attempt to support any of them.  The only purpose of this codec
 should be to carry sounds to a human ear.

 b) DTMF support is important to ensure interoperability and reliable
 operation. Thus, the codec SHOULD support the transmission DTMF at most
 transmission conditions. The DTMF transmission performance MUST be tested
 and characterized.

 Thus, I suggest to pause the decision until we found a volunteer that
 provides a DTMF testing environment.

 PS:
 It is common consensus that FAX NEED NOT to be support or tested.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/5#comment:2>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>

---

From: stephen botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 07:21:21 -0400

I think quite a few people seemed to support the SHOULD requirement (with
MUST be tested, since all requirements need to be tested). It might be
enough to say there is a rough consensus.

I'd suggest a show of hands (or hum) be used at the next meeting, in order
to get a better sense of the community's view.

I do not favor tabling a requirement for X until we find "a volunteer that
provides an X testing environment."

If there is agreement that the requirement exists (either in MUST or SHOULD
form), then we need to find a way to test it.  The tests in general will not
be exhaustive (for instance, we will certainly not produce MOS scores for
every language under every channel condition), but they need to be broad
enough that we can say we've characterized the performance with some
confidence.

IMHO we will need to specify and create the testing environment for each of
the requirements.  It seems to me unavoidable.

Implementing a test environment for this particular requirement is frankly *
much* easier than most of the testing we will have to do. Raymond Chen's
suggestions seem very reasonable, and would result in an objective automated
test score.

Stephen Botzko

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 1:01 AM, codec issue tracker <[email-masked]>wrote:

>  Thus, I suggest to pause the decision until we found "
>
>  PS:
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>

---

From: "codec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 05:35:46 -0000

#5: Mention DTMF in requirements
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |        Owner:         
     Type:  task                    |       Status:  closed 
 Priority:  trivial                 |    Milestone:         
Component:  requirements            |      Version:         
 Severity:  Active WG Document      |   Resolution:  wontfix
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by hoene@…):

  * priority:  major => trivial
  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => wontfix
  * type:  defect => task

Comment:

 On this thread I see 6 posters who see at least a SHOULD requirement, 4
 posters who see a NON requirement and 3 posters for which I can't tell.

 There seems to be general agreement that the use case is real, the
 disagreement is whether RFC 2833 eliminates the need for DTMF transparency
 (or not).

 I suggest a hum in July might be the best way to see where the community
 as a whole is.

 Stephen Botzko

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/5#comment:3>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>