Summary:	ASTERISK-14856: New sounds for sounds-extras
Reporter:	John Todd (jtodd)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2009-09-21 14:55:05	Date Closed:	2016-08-05 12:32:20
Priority:	Major	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Sounds
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) cert-auth-unknown.aif ( 1) cert-expired.aif ( 2) cert-mismatch.aif ( 3) cert-rejected.aif ( 4) cert-revoked.aif ( 5) cert-should-accept.aif ( 6) cert-valid.aif ( 7) SRTP-success.aif ( 8) SSIP-success.aif ( 9) your-public-ip.aif
Description:	New sounds for sounds-extras, somewhat talking about cert issues since TLS is done and SRTP is on the horizon.  Discussed briefly with oej and kpfleming in loop. %cert-expired%The certificate provided by this server has expired. %cert-auth-unknown%The certificate provided by this server is signed by an unknown certificate authority. %cert-revoked%The certificate provided by this server has been revoked. %cert-valid%The certificate provided by this server is valid. %cert-mismatch%The certificate provided by this server does not match the host name of the server. %cert-rejected%Your server or client should have rejected this certificate. %cert-should-accept%Your server or client should have accepted this certificate. %your-public-ip%Your public IP address is… %SSIP-success%You have successfully established a Secure SIP Session. %SRTP-success%You have successfully established a Secure RTP Session.
Comments:	By: John Todd (jtodd) 2009-09-21 15:00:37 I know I didn't follow my own instructions here and submit this as a single tarball, but I was halfway done with uploading them before I thought about it.  :-)  I can re-submit as a single file, if required.  I'll have a signed document from Allison shortly with the CCv3 disclaimer sent in to legal, as per the new language submission documentation.  Since these are additions to an existing language (english/Allison) there is no need to fulfill all of the items in the doc/lang/language-criteria.txt process list. By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2009-09-21 15:19:21 Thanks for your contribution! By: Clod Patry (junky) 2009-09-21 17:56:20 Is there a reason why cert-rejected is not cert-should-rejected to be standard with cert-should-accept ? I will provide translation for june wallack for extra-fr. By: John Todd (jtodd) 2009-09-21 18:26:27 junky - let's wait until we get full discussion on the prompts before we have June do them.  I'd not want to have to re-do them if we have any comments on the structure of the prompts. By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2009-09-22 01:57:04 I don't like using the word "secure" in the last two prompts. "Secure" implies a lot of things. With our TLS implementation, we can only say "confidential". Even if we had SRTP, I would hesitate to promise a "secure" connection. By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2009-09-22 02:16:11 oej:  in this case, it's simply the meaning of the acronym.  If people have a problem with it, they can take it up with the appropriate standards committee. By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2009-09-22 02:34:09 tilghman: ...and if we can do better, we should not? ;-) By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2010-05-19 13:12:01 These are in .aif format, but don't they need to be sent as 48kHz, 16-bit wav audio? Not sure our scripts will support the AIF conversion. By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2010-05-19 13:12:59 Also, are we satisfied with the prompts here and can move them along to be translated? By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2010-05-19 13:16:04 I'm assigning to twilson currently simply so he can verify the prompts here are what we need for SRTP support and that we're not missing extra prompts that need to be accounted for. By: Terry Wilson (twilson) 2010-05-26 10:32:10 Secure is a good word to use, in my opinion, since we will be allowing the end user themselves to define what secure means--it isn't something that we are handing down to them. I don't think the prompts should be protocol specific. The same methods for checking secure signaling/media exist for both SIP and IAX2 already. I think it is important to make the prompts as generic as possible so they can get the widest use. It would seem odd for the average user of a PBX to hear a bunch of tecno-babble about protocols and certificates I would think. Not that it hurts to have those prompts as options, just that I think we need something like: "Your call is/is not secure" "The other party's call is/is not secure" If you really wanted you could break "secure" into: "has/does not have secure media" "has/does not have secure signaling" "has/does not have secure media and signaling" etc., but I think that might be overkill for must users. By: John Todd (jtodd) 2010-05-26 14:40:51 So can someone please create a script list of what is necessary to give to Allison for additional voicing? By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2016-08-05 12:32:20.910-0500 Reviewing some older sounds issues. Closing this out as there doesn't appear to be any demand for it and it doesn't appear to be as simple as just adding sounds in.