Subject: [Sipping] Mid-call DTMF hand-off between SIP peers

From: "Jain, Rajnish (Rajnish)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:07:32 -0400

I briefly recall that a few weeks back, a small group was formed w/in SIPPING
that had the ownership of concluding "a" technique for mid-call DTMF hand-off between SIP peers. Some of the options on the table at that time included the
following:

+ DTMF conveyance w/in SIP INFO
+ DTMF conveyance w/in RFC 2833 multi-unicast

Would someone be able to report if the group has reached to any conclusion on
this topic? Additionally, what progress has been made so far?

Thanks,
Rajnish  
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:37:47 -0400

inline.

Jain, Rajnish (Rajnish) wrote:
 > I briefly recall that a few weeks back, a small group was formed w/in
 > SIPPING that had the ownership of concluding "a" technique for
 > mid-call DTMF hand-off between SIP peers. Some of the options on the
 > table at that time included the following:
 >
 > + DTMF conveyance w/in SIP INFO + DTMF conveyance w/in RFC 2833
 > multi-unicast

Actually, the drafts on the table were:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sipping-markup-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-culpepper-sipping-app-interact-reqs-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fairlie-sipping-netapp-session-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-culpepper-sip-key-events-01.txt

none of which proposes to use rfc2833 to convey DTMF to *applications*. 
RFC 2833 is still used as a way to convey DTMF to the recpient of the 
media stream.

Anyway, the design team has been meeting regularly for a few weeks, and 
has made a lot of progress on the general framework. My perception is 
that we have converged on a markup-style approach, incorporating some of 
the push/termination concepts from Robert's netapp draft, passing a URL 
in a header for fetching the markup (with the posibility that the URI is 
a CID URI for inband markup in the body). The primary points of 
discussion right now are usage of a SIP vs. HTTP URI for posting the 
results of the markup, and also on the scope of a DML-like markup language.

Of course, this is my take on the progress so far and does not represent 
an official design team output. We are still debating things. Of course, 
with all design teams, any results are subject to broader working group 
consensus and buy in.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: "Steve Fisher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:47:30 -0400

Jonathan,

I was wondering if you (or anyone on the design team) could give us on
the mailing list some sense of when the team might be ready to share
with us a proposal for mid-call DTMF detection and notification. Many of
us are eagerly awaiting the results of your work!

Thanks!
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Rosenberg
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:38 PM
To: Jain, Rajnish (Rajnish)
Cc: [email-masked]'; Twomey, Michael S (Michael);
[email-masked]'; Saverino, Victor (Victor); Ellis, Timothy W
(Tim)
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Mid-call DTMF hand-off between SIP peers

inline.

Jain, Rajnish (Rajnish) wrote:
> SIPPING that had the ownership of concluding "a" technique for  >
mid-call DTMF hand-off between SIP peers. Some of the options on the  >
table at that time included the following:  >  > + DTMF conveyance w/in
SIP INFO + DTMF conveyance w/in RFC 2833  > multi-unicast

Actually, the drafts on the table were:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sipping-markup-00.tx
t
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-culpepper-sipping-app-interact
-reqs-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fairlie-sipping-netapp-session
-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-culpepper-sip-key-events-01.tx
t

a CID URI for inband markup in the body). The primary points of 
discussion right now are usage of a SIP vs. HTTP URI for posting the 
results of the markup, and also on the scope of a DML-like markup
language.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments of core SIP