<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">> I should clarify that we support the dtmf tones plus flash but no other tones at this time.<br><br>Seems you have not to support other tones, because they are declared as deprecated in RFC4733 (See also a companion RFC4734). Flash is deprecated either, however supporting flash ensures backward compatibility. Anyway it's used only by a few gateways. <br><br>RFC 2833 caused me a lot of headaches in the past, there were 13 drafts over 2833, if I'm not mistaken, before they finally published 4733.<br>It indeed contains some clarifications, while it's mostly backward compatible with 2833.<br>The most ridiculous part in out of band implementation is robustness against network conditions and interference of in-band and out-of-band tones (SIP -> PSTN) , surely not counting robustness against broken
implementations (from Asterisk 1.2 times).<br><br>Anyway, section "2.5.2.2. Playout of Tone Events in RFC4733" deserves careful reading.<br><br>Regards,<br>Arsen.<br><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:48:39 -0400<br>From: Michael Jerris <<a ymailto="mailto:mike@jerris.com" href="mailto:mike@jerris.com">mike@jerris.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Is RFC 4733 supported ?<br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org" href="mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org">freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:909FF661-266E-47D1-A881-52D54C99ACCB@jerris.com" href="mailto:909FF661-266E-47D1-A881-52D54C99ACCB@jerris.com">909FF661-266E-47D1-A881-52D54C99ACCB@jerris.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed;
delsp=yes<br><br>I should clarify that we support the dtmf tones plus flash but no <br>other tones at this time.<br><br>Mike<br><br>On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Steve Underwood wrote:<br><br>> Michael Jerris wrote:<br>>> rfc 4733 attempts (and fails miserably) to clarify rfc2833. It<br>>> doesn't "really" change anything of any real substnace. Our handling<br>>> of these packets tries very hard to be strict in what we send and<br>>> loose in what we accept and we tend to interoperate pretty well with<br>>> most endpoints. That being said, there are some very broken <br>>> endpoints<br>>> out there (such as sonus) that require special hacks, some are<br>>> automatic, some require settings. All that being said, we should be<br>>> very compliant with both 2833 and 4733, although you will generally<br>>> see references in settings refer to 2833.<br>>
RFC4733 largely tries to clarify RFC2833 for the DTMF features. <br>> However,<br>> for most other signal it is very incompatible with RFC2833.<br><br></div></div></div></body></html>