[Asterisk-Dev] Re: T.38

[Steve Underwood]

Orehov Pasha wrote:

> Steve Underwood wrote:
>
>> Matthew Boehm wrote:
>>
>>> Jerris, Michael MI wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>>> Paul Cadach wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5) T.38 support;
>>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I feel this is a must for 1.2. People have been waiting
>>>>> a long time for this. T38 is the only reason why we purchased
>>>>> a Cisco 5300 a few months ago instead of another asterisk box.
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A must as in you are offering to do it or pay for it, or a must in
>>>> that we should never release 1.2 until it is complete.  I don't think
>>>> we can realistically hold up anything for T.38.  If someone is
>>>> willing to make it happen, great.  I will put my name firmly in the
>>>> that would be really nice column.
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Suposedly Steve Underwood has been working on it for many months. He
>>> recently told me that he was close to completion. I've sent him many 
>>> many
>>> emails offering to help test/debug/etc but they always go 
>>> unanswered. There
>>> is $3000 bounty in place.
>>>
>>> At the very least, T38 pass-thru should be added. It seemed very
>>> "microsoft-ish" to me when I tried to send T38 thru asterisk and 
>>> asterisk
>>> said "what the crap is that? deny!"
>>>  
>>>
>> Do you understand what doing T.38 passthrough really means? Many 
>> people seem to think it just means adding another codec to the SDP 
>> stuff. Its actually a new transport (since it usually uses UDPTL and 
>> RTP is rarely supporetd). The SDP stuff is messy, too, as the SIP 
>> implementation in * is far from complete and generic. What I am using 
>> at the moment is more of a fudged SDP to get something working, than 
>> a proper solution. To do passthrough properly you really need to 
>> allow for talking between UDPTL and RTP. However, the RTP version of 
>> T.38 is still so rare it can be left for the moment. In the extreme 
>> case you should really allow for talking between TCP, UDPTL and RTP. 
>> However the TCP version of T.38 is different enough to make that tough.
>>
>> If passthrough was trivial I would have released it early in my T.38 
>> work.
>
> in h323 forpassthru it means additional codec type. Please add 
> infrastructure to channel.c and publish as external patch and it will 
> be fast to add chan_-private at first solutions to separate channels.
> I hope. :)
> chan-common is next.
> t38 termination is more next.

I don't know if I am having a problem with your English, or if you don't 
understand the problem, but none of that seems to make any sense.

Regards,
Steve