[SIPForum-discussion] Difference in DTMF payloads

[Javier Dejo]

Eric,

 

Thanks! That helped me a lot.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

 

Javier E. Dejo

Broadband Solutions Engineer

ZyXEL Communications

North America

 1130 North Miller St.

Anaheim, CA 92806-2001

Tel: (714) 632 0882 x258

Cel: (714) 343 2297

Fax: (714) 632 0858 

E-Mail: javierd at zyxel.com

 

From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger at bea.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:14 PM
To: Javier Dejo; Dan York
Cc: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Difference in DTMF payloads

 

2833 and 4733 are virtually identical.

The payload types are dynamic.  There is no difference.  You need to be
prepared to accept any payload number assigned by the SDP.


On 12/6/07 11:20 AM, "Javier Dejo" <javierd at zyxel.com> wrote:

I will take a look to it, but then a new question: Is it backwards
compatible with RFC2833? Does a device that supports RFC4733 has to
support 2833 for backwards compatibility, as a separated thing?
 


 
 
 
Javier E. Dejo

Hi all,
 
I'm a newbie to this list, and to SIP, and I have a question: What is
the difference between DTMF event payload 100 and 101?
 
Are them both RFC2833?

I don't have an answer to your question, but I would point out that RFC
2833 has been made obsolete by RFC 4733:

  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4733.txt

So that should be the reference used when looking at this way of doing
DTMF over SIP. (i.e.  RFC 2833 should no longer be used)

Regards,
Dan

 


Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071207/c6f6b4e2/attachment-0002.html>