Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP-addresses (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04)
Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> Wed, 17 April 2013 14:32 UTC
Return-Path: <fandreas@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3355021F8615 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tRJMEKqOsNYj for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96EB21F8614 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366209173; x=1367418773; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lCMajeV5SiKN+2kXejD5Sq+AMmC5ouicoNYCEzapNEs=; b=XFJneh8kgBqH4rzwCK11btDLfgKrl+UPD1jkInD+AIt/EbgfhGtq4E6n n5N846gaEipbG5u4N1z2a/WU8Wcim36acExJDuGZfhu1DaUh2/9Cb/+a+ 7IieTRMjCPYZac7sLyv9IkdhA3zWgENOMH9TJNK8LeGz63hzMhZzPIY3R E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAFixblGrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABQgwY2wQyBAxZ0gh8BAQEDAQEBAS8BBTQCCAIBBQcECxEEAQEBCRYEBAcJAwIBAgEVHwkIEwEFAgEBBRKHcwUNvUuNYgaBJwsHBoNAA5cGkRSBVYFSIIEuCRc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,492,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="75798384"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2013 14:32:53 +0000
Received: from Flemmings-MacBook-Pro.local (che-vpn-cluster-2-15.cisco.com [10.86.242.15]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3HEWhcj018511; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:32:44 GMT
Message-ID: <516EB28A.1050003@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:32:42 -0400
From: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D31D67@XMB104ADS.rim.net> <514FA8F7.7060203@cisco.com> <D09DAE6B636851459F7575D146EFB54B210ADF26@008-AM1MPN1-025.mgdnok.nokia.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C282@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5168A94B.20608@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC66217CC@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC66217CC@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "jonathan@vidyo.com" <jonathan@vidyo.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP-addresses (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:32:55 -0000
On 4/17/13 7:08 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > Hi Felmming, > > Because it does not allow to indicate an alternate port number. Correct - a connection address does not provide a port number; a different capability would be needed for that. > This makes it a no working solution for various scenarios. No - it simply means that you would need to define another capability to convey port numbers if you wanted such a solution (however we have ICE as the complete solution for that and the WG has not indicated a desire to change that). > The text which triggered this discussion was confusing. I hope the updated version will be much more clear and reflect what have been discussion so far in this thread. I have asked Simo to update the draft. Thanks -- Flemming > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Flemming Andreasen [mailto:fandreas@cisco.com] >> Envoyé : samedi 13 avril 2013 02:40 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >> Cc : Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com; aallen@blackberry.com; >> HKaplan@acmepacket.com; jonathan@vidyo.com; mmusic@ietf.org; >> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com >> Objet : Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP-addresses >> (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04) >> >> >> On 4/12/13 11:39 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >>> Hi Simo, >>> >>> I'm in favor of restricting the alternative address to PSTN. >> Can you elaborate on why ? >> >> We have defined a generic connection data capability as part of a >> general capability negotiation framework. What's the point of that if >> the only value it can convey is PSTN ? >> >> Thanks >> >> -- Flemming >> >> >>> This is coherent whit your first bullet below. >>> >>> If you share the text changes you are proposing, this would be more >> easier to review. >>> Thanks for taking care of this issue. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Med >>> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>> De : mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] De la part >> de >>>> Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com >>>> Envoyé : lundi 8 avril 2013 08:35 >>>> À : fandreas@cisco.com; aallen@blackberry.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com >>>> Cc : jonathan@vidyo.com; mmusic@ietf.org; christer.holmberg@ericsson.com >>>> Objet : Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP-addresses >>>> (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04) >>>> >>>> Recapping the discussion so far: >>>> >>>> >>>> - ICE is the way to negotiate between different IP addresses. There >> seems >>>> to be no disagreement here. >>>> >>>> - since no alternative port number can be expressed, in practice the IN >>>> address needs to go to the actual configuration (address in the c= line >> and >>>> port number in the m= line), and the alternative PSTN address in the >>>> potential configurations. Also here, there seems to be no disagreement. >>>> >>>> - then, whether the "ccap" attribute should be limited to carry only >> PSTN >>>> addresses, or also other types. I'm with Flemming on this one; SDP >> capneg >>>> framework is already fragmented enough, and limiting the connection >> address >>>> capability to PSTN addresses only would again be targeted for a single >> use >>>> case only, whereas we should strive for general solutions. >>>> >>>> Simo >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of >>>> ext Flemming Andreasen >>>> Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2013 3:32 >>>> To: Andrew Allen >>>> Cc: jonathan@vidyo.com; mmusic@ietf.org; christer.holmberg@ericsson.com >>>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP-addresses >>>> (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/24/13 1:33 PM, Andrew Allen wrote: >>>>> There is also nothing that prevents people from defining their own >>>> proprietary attributes to do such a thing but that is not part of an >> IETF >>>> standard and is not approved usage. >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>>> If we really feel the need to discourage further such usage I suppose >> we >>>> could add some text stating that if CCAP s received containing an IN net >>>> type and an IN net type is present in the corresponding Connection >>>> Attribute then the CCAP attribute MUST be ignored. >>>> I think that gets complicated quickly for a questionable gain. I'd >>>> prefer the "MUST NOT" described below with an explanation as to why it's >>>> there; as you note, ultimately people either decide to be spec compliant >>>> or not. >>>> >>>> -- Flemming >>>>> That way compliant implementations would not perfom the discouraged >>>> behavior. >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:fandreas@cisco.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:39 AM Central Standard Time >>>>> To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >>>>> Cc: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>; mmusic@ietf.org >>>> <mmusic@ietf.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP- >>>> addresses (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04) >>>>> On 3/23/13 5:24 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> In general I agree that having multiple ways of doing the same thing >> is >>>> not a good thing, and I don't have any strong feelings regarding the >> ccap >>>> usage. >>>>>> But, no matter what we say, what would actually prevent people from >>>> using ccap, in the same way they are using ANAT and altc? :) >>>>> There's no port signaling capability with ccap, but other than that, >> the >>>>> only thing that prevents people from using this to signal alternative >>>>> IP-addresses is the existence of a "MUST NOT" in the spec. >>>>> >>>>> -- Flemming >>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Christer >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of >>>> Jonathan Lennox [jonathan@vidyo.com] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013 10:00 PM >>>>>> To: Flemming Andreasen >>>>>> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP- >>>> addresses (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04) >>>>>> Currently, the deployed SIP world has three mechanisms to allow some >>>> flavor of negotiation among multiple IP addresses: ICE, altc (despite >> the >>>> general disapproval of the working group), and ANAT (despite its >>>> deprecation). >>>>>> I think that adding ccap as a fourth member of this set would be a >>>> terrible idea; and as far as I can tell, no one wants to do that. So we >>>> need to make it clear that that it MUST NOT be used for that purpose. >>>>>> In the formulation below, I think I'd say that a given media >> description >>>> MUST NOT indicate more than one address with an IN network type, across >> all >>>> its configurations (actual and potential). >>>>>> Obviously, different media descriptions (m= line blocks) can have >>>> different addresses. >>>>>> In practice, given the port number issue that started this thread, I >>>> suspect this means that the SDP offer will need to put the IN address in >>>> the actual configuration (in the c= line), and the PSTN address(es) will >> be >>>> in the potential configurations. >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Still waiting for more comments on this, especially from the people >>>> that >>>>>>> were very vocal in their complaints previously: Now is the time to >>>> speak up. >>>>>>> Regardless, a few comments on the below: >>>>>>> 1) It allows the use of "ccap" to be used to indicate one or more >> "IP4" >>>>>>> addresses in a given SDP. >>>>>>> 2) It allows the use of "ccap" to be used to indicate one or more >> "IP6" >>>>>>> addresses in a given SDP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nit-picking a bit on the actual text, which I think is important: >>>>>>> The "ccap" attribute is not what is being to select between different >>>>>>> IP-addresses; the use of a "ccap" attribute in a potential >>>> configuration >>>>>>> ("pcfg") is what is being used for this. Is the restriction that we >>>> want >>>>>>> here: >>>>>>> a) A potential configuration MUST NOT reference more than one "ccap" >>>>>>> attribute with a network type of "IN" ? >>>>>>> b) All potential configurations for a particular media description >> MUST >>>>>>> NOT reference more than one "ccap" attribute with a network type of >>>> "IN" ? >>>>>>> c) Something else ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Flemming >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/22/13 1:35 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: >>>>>>>> I am OK with either of these proposals >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:57 AM >>>>>>>> To: fandreas@cisco.com; mmusic@ietf.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP- >>>> addresses (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04) >>>>>>>> I went through the discussion, and my reading is that there is >>>> agreement on not allowing ccap to be used for alternative IP address >>>> negotiation. >>>>>>>> That could be made clear in the text e.g. by modifying the second >>>> sentence Flemming quoted to read: >>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>> The 'ccap' attribute MUST NOT be used to select >>>>>>>> between different IP connection addresses (e.g. between >>>>>>>> "IP4" and "IP6" address families or different IP addresses >>>>>>>> within the same IP address family). >>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ccap attribute should be able to carry either an IP or PSTN >>>> address; that way either a PSTN or an IP bearer could be offered as the >>>> highest priority configuration (in the "m=" line). However, if we want >> to >>>> clarify the intended use of ccap, we could modify the first sentence to >>>> read: >>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>> The 'ccap' capability attribute is intended for offering >>>>>>>> alternative connection addresses where the <nettype> >>>>>>>> is "IN" or "PSTN", i.e. selecting between an IP based >>>>>>>> bearer or a circuit-switched bearer. >>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Simo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf Of ext Flemming Andreasen >>>>>>>> Sent: 19. maaliskuuta 2013 8:24 >>>>>>>> To: mmusic >>>>>>>> Subject: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP-addresses >>>> (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04) >>>>>>>> Greetings >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you may have seen, there has recently been some list discussion >> on >>>> the "connection data capability" defined in >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04 (see e.g. thread in >>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg10472.html) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To recap, the connection data capability ("ccap") provides >> capability >>>> negotiation capabilities for what amounts to the "c=" line in regular >> SDP, >>>> and as such enables negotiation of network type (such as "IN") and IP- >>>> address information (v4 and v6 addresses). The Standards Track mechanism >>>> for negotiating and determining alternative IP-address information today >> is >>>> ICE, and hence the draft currently includes the following wording: >>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>> The 'ccap' capability attribute is intended to >>>>>>>> be used only when there is no other mechanism available for >>>>>>>> negotiating alternative connection address information, such >> as >>>> when >>>>>>>> the <nettype> is different among the alternative addresses >> (e.g. >>>>>>>> "IN" and "PSTN"). The 'ccap' attribute MUST NOT be used in >>>>>>>> situations where an existing mechanism (such as Interactive >>>>>>>> Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245]) can be used to >>>> select >>>>>>>> between different connection addresses (e.g. "IP4" and "IP6" >> or >>>>>>>> different IP addresses within the same IP address family). >>>>>>>> </quoted> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The above text has led to some confusion as to exactly when and what >>>> "ccap" can be used for. More specifically, is it/should it ever be >> allowed >>>> to use "ccap" to convey an IP4 or IP6 address, and if so, under what >>>> circumstances ? >>>>>>>> If you have an opinion, please let us know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A couple of points to keep in mind: >>>>>>>> - The current document has been WGLC'ed without comment ~6 months >> ago. >>>>>>>> - 3GPP has a dependency on the document (however I'm not sure if >> that >>>> dependency includes the above "IN" feature) >>>>>>>> - The connection data capability is defined in a general manner to >> be >>>> generally useful in line with the overall capability negotiation >> framework >>>> (as opposed to targeted at one specific use case with one specific >> value) >>>>>>>> - There are scenarios where ICE cannot be used, even if implemented >>>> (e.g. ice-mismatch). >>>>>>>> - RFC 6849 (media loopback) provides for NAT traversal in the >> absence >>>> of ICE support >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Flemming >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> mmusic mailing list >>>>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> mmusic mailing list >>>>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >>>>>>>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain >> confidential >>>> information, privileged material (including material protected by the >>>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non- >> public >>>> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the >> intended >>>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in >> error, >>>> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from >>>> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this >>>> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be >>>> unlawful. >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> mmusic mailing list >>>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jonathan Lennox >>>>>> jonathan@vidyo.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mmusic mailing list >>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mmusic mailing list >>>>> mmusic@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential >>>> information, privileged material (including material protected by the >>>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non- >> public >>>> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the >> intended >>>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in >> error, >>>> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from >>>> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this >>>> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be >>>> unlawful. >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mmusic mailing list >>>> mmusic@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mmusic mailing list >>>> mmusic@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>> . >>> > . >
- [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) and IP… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Andrew Allen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Simo.Veikkolainen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Stach, Thomas
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Andrew Allen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Andrew Allen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Andrew Allen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Andrew Allen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Andrew Allen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Simo.Veikkolainen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Simo.Veikkolainen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Simo.Veikkolainen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Connection Data Capability (ccap) an… Simo.Veikkolainen
- [MMUSIC] Last chance to comment: Re: Connection D… Flemming Andreasen