pktcSigDevCodecTable request for clarification
"David De Reu" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipcdn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear all, Some MTA vendors are a bit puzzled regarding what to include in the pktcSigDevCodecTable table. On their and my own behalf, I would like to request some clarification. More specifically, there actually are two types of codecs: - First, the "real" voice codecs, like the ones listed in the PktcCodecType TEXTUAL-CONVENTION (PCMA, PCMU, G.729... etc) - Second, supplementary "codecs", for example for DTMF relay (RFC 2833). In (Euro-)PacketCable/IPCablecom, this is the "telephone-event" "codec". Other, proprietary solutions for DTMF relay exist as well, by the way, so this is not limited to "telephone-event" alone. >From a signaling point of view (NCS and SDP in our case), the "codecs" of the second type, are treated as all other codecs. However in practice they cannot be used for the entire call, they have to be used in conjunction with a "real" codec. The question now is: do the codecs of the second type have to be included in the pktcSigDevCodecTable, or is this table just intended for "real" codecs? Either way, a clarification of some sort in the DESCRIPTION clause would be helpful to implementors (and testers, as a matter of fact). If they are to be included, currently the only way is to use "other (1)" as the type, which is of course allowed but not very informative. This leads me to my second point: if things like "telephone-event" are supposed to be included in the pktcSigDevCodecTable, then I at least suggest extending the PktcCodecType with something like "telephoneEvent (15)". Any feedback would be appreciated. Regards, David _____________________________________________________ David De Reu tComLabs Stapelplein 70/004 9000 Ghent Belgium Tel: +32 9 269 22 91 Fax: +32 9 329 31 74 www.tComLabs.com _____________________________________________________