Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 29 February 2016 15:16 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED571B3354 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:16:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.165
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_111=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l7XjIEogmaRd for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB9581B3362 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.99]) by resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id QFGB1s00329Cfhx01FGF3y; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:16:15 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([73.218.51.154]) by resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id QFGE1s00B3KdFy101FGEd3; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:16:15 +0000
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22E88D533@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <56AACC37.8090900@cisco.com> <56AB8596.9090304@alum.mit.edu> <56B12F48.409@cisco.com> <56B25159.70002@alum.mit.edu> <56B28240.7080206@cisco.com> <56B2DA8D.2000909@alum.mit.edu> <56B41A47.10901@nteczone.com> <56B63EF8.8080100@alum.mit.edu> <56B8BDA4.7060305@cisco.com> <56B8CBB5.7070507@alum.mit.edu> <56BCF47E.2000603@cisco.com> <56BDB7BC.1060104@alcatel-lucent.com> <56BE0F51.7050700@alum.mit.edu> <56C05B90.5070107@alcatel-lucent.com> <56C1F810.4060309@alum.mit.edu> <56C31DC5.80105@alcatel-lucent.com> <56C471D1.8010701@alcatel-lucent.com> <56C745EB.6060605@alum.mit.edu> <56CC5EC6.2030402@alcatel-lucent.com> <56CCCE6F.9040106@alum.mit.edu> <56CE49C1.2020605@nteczone.com> <56CF7470.10706@alum.mit.edu> <56D05E8D.5080306@alcatel-lucent.com> <56D08F58.1040709@alum.mit.edu> <56D3B18E.7000904@nteczone.com> <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1ACE19D4AFD@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <56D460BD.6080306@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:16:13 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1ACE19D4AFD@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1456758975; bh=b2WAKYiKfz66NPuZwyC9w3ImKq7WFsCTh4eaTzu8uLU=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=cxAuqRxbtmwAk/Gfg8mUbZxDeYkMm7xNx6vwuzq5cfiR0T0JQnOms7kXvECUlC5X0 uOSA3bBu53IgIxg5yTjKMmNNTJcqt+B8ZWm/ECaDKrcXX0SqQ1VbsoMxnN83fX+qEf lNKC6aynGFDnCjuZQFrvD9EHTzhu2nPte90vRePfTEUYaSiN3AnbwMrlye+puYTJ9+ YA4VXzZrVfTh8c2j1MVjucPKrwOqJJ96s7FKsj2J/PYflgYE3hVJMJim9s5Y6gbA1D xNW5aKZ8yUyc8MOmq9Pd4NYI0TelT8EgF8oIOcKEwuQaATu9gEqAbZ4SC3XNEZODFJ JgOufhso5w21Q==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/YRscp55kP67iAZzFRiklFM9pi4o>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:16:29 -0000
Since I am the only one who thinks there is a problem I'm going to just stop talking about it. We can deal with the problem if/when it arises. (I don't like leaving loose ends, but it isn't important enough to pursue here.) Thanks, Paul On 2/29/16 3:45 AM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Nokia - DE) wrote: >> Perhaps a document could be created that defined RTP/AVP, RTP/AVPF, >> RTP/SAVP, RTP/SAVPF as sub-protocols and registered them in the >> websocket/datachannel registry. And then that document might say that >> any sdp attribute designed to be used with protos */(each of these >> subprotocols) may also be used in dcsa for a channel using these >> protocols. > [CNG] Yes it "could" be, if someone actually wanted to carry RTP over a > data channel. That would follow with what is being done for MSRP and > BFCP. I don't see RTP as being any different. > > There isn't any use case at all for RTP-over-DC, neither for RTP in general nor specific RTP profiles "RTP/<Profile(s)>". > Thus, I concur to Christian. > Regards, > Albrecht > > -----Original Message----- > From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of EXT Christian Groves > Sent: Montag, 29. Februar 2016 03:49 > To: mmusic@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg > > Hello Paul and Juergen, > > On 27/02/2016 4:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2/26/16 9:17 AM, Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler wrote: >>> Hello Paul, Christian, >>> >>> Would propose to add following definition of term "subprotocol" to >>> the terminology section 3 of the sdpneg draft: >>> >>> Data channel subprotocol: The application protocol which is >>> transported over a single data channel. Data channel subprotocol >>> messages are sent as data channel payload over an established >>> data >>> channel. If an SDP offer/answer exchange is used as specified in >>> this document to negotiate the establishment of data channels, >>> corresponding data channel properties, associated data channel >>> subprotocols and data channel subprotocol properties, then the >>> data >>> channel subprotocols may be identified by the values of the >>> "subprotocol" parameters of the SDP "a=dcmap" attributes as >>> described in Section 5.1.1.5. Within this document the term >>> "data >>> channel subprotocol" is often abbreviated as just "subprotocol". >>> >>> This text could explicitly narrow down the notion of "subprotocol" >>> within the data channel SDP offer/answer context and might especially >>> be helpful distinguishing it from the usages of "subprotocol" in the >>> Websocket RFC 6455 (where the term "subprotocol" was taken from, but >>> where it does not seem to be formally defined). This text may >>> certainly not be helpful in more general non-data channel contexts. >>> But it might help to clarify that every occurrence of of the term >>> "subprotocol" in the sdpneg draft refers to the application protocol >>> which (typically but not necessarily) is identified via the a=dcmap's "subprotocol" >>> parameter. >>> >>> Would such an explicit definition be helpful from your point of view? >> >> It might *help*, but it doesn't get at the main problem I see. >> >> The question is how does this sub-protocol relate the the proto field >> used in m-lines? But not to the proto of the m-line for data channel. >> My point is that many sdp attributes were designed to be used with >> particular proto fields. For instance, with RTP/AVP, RTP/AVPF, >> TCP/RTP/AVP, RTP/SAVP, DCCP/RTP/AVP, DCCP/RTP/SAVP, DCCP/RTP/AVPF, >> RTP/SAVPF, UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVP, DCCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP, UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF, >> DCCP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF, ... > [CNG] Does sub-protocol have to relate to the proto field? The proto field in the case of WebRTC-datachannel is UDP/DTLS/SCTP. What ever is carried in the individual data channels is the sub-protocol. > Draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg is only considering this. > >> >> In general they are described as being applicable to RTP. But what is >> RTP? Is it a subprotocol (of UDP, TCP, DCCP)? Or is it a >> super-protocol (of AVP, AVPF, SAVP, SAVPF)? > [CNG] I'm not sure it matters? If someone wants to run a particular RTP > profile over a data channel then it is a sub-protocol of UDP/DTLS/SCTP. > All the other above examples have already been defined so I don't see we > gain anything by trying to label them as a sub-protocol etc. > >> >> If we wanted to define use of RTP over a data channel, what >> sub-protocol(s) would we have to define? I *think* we would have to >> define as many of RTP/AVP, RTP/AVPF, RTP/SAVP, RTP/SAVPF as we wanted >> to support over a data channel. > [CNG] Yes I would agree. >> >> And then how would we do it, and where would we specify which >> attributes could be used with dcsa? Would we have to update the >> documents that define those attributes? > [CNG] I assume we'd follow the example of > draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel. It discusses the use of > existing attributes. I don't see that RTP would need to do anything > different. > >> >> ISTM there are similar (though not so complex) issues for pretty much >> any attribute that we might want to reuse over a data channel. > [CNG] Some will be complex, some will be a no brainer. What > draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg provides is a syntax for re-using > attributes. It doesn't provide semantics for every attribute. > Implementors need to understand that some attributes have been defined > with a particular protocol stack in mind and that they the behaviour may > need to be modified when using a data channel. >> >> Perhaps a document could be created that defined RTP/AVP, RTP/AVPF, >> RTP/SAVP, RTP/SAVPF as sub-protocols and registered them in the >> websocket/datachannel registry. And then that document might say that >> any sdp attribute designed to be used with protos */(each of these >> subprotocols) may also be used in dcsa for a channel using these >> protocols. > [CNG] Yes it "could" be, if someone actually wanted to carry RTP over a > data channel. That would follow with what is being done for MSRP and > BFCP. I don't see RTP as being any different. >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >>> Thanks, >>> Juergen >>> >>> >>> On 25.02.2016 22:38, EXT Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>> On 2/24/16 7:24 PM, Christian Groves wrote: >>>>> Hello Juergen and Paul, >>>>> >>>>> Please see at end. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Christian >>>>> >>>>> On 24/02/2016 8:26 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>> ..snip.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 19.02.2016 17:42, EXT Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/17/16 8:12 AM, Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, Christian, Flemming, Bo, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have just submitted version 08 of >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg. >>>>>>>>> The changes compared to version 07 are essentially as follows. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Two new paragraphs in section 5.1.2.1 (dcsa Attribute) >>>>>>>>> regarding the >>>>>>>>> relationship of subprotocols and their attributes. >>>>>>>>> * Two new SDP offer/answer considerations in section 5.2.5 >>>>>>>>> (Various >>>>>>>>> SDP Offer/Answer Scenarios and Considerations) regarding unknown >>>>>>>>> subprotocol attributes or known subprotocol attributes, whose data >>>>>>>>> channel transport specific semantic is not known. >>>>>>>>> * A new paragraph in section 8.1 (IANA Considerations / >>>>>>>>> Subprotocol >>>>>>>>> Identifiers) related to cases, where a subprotocol is defined for >>>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>>> channel and Websocket transport. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These changes should address the points discussed in this email >>>>>>>>> thread. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is an improvement. But I think things could still be made >>>>>>>> clearer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consider the following addition to 5.1.2.1: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is assumed that in general the usages of subprotocol related >>>>>>>> media >>>>>>>> level attributes are independent from the subprotocol's >>>>>>>> transport >>>>>>>> protocol. Such transport protocol independent subprotocol >>>>>>>> related >>>>>>>> attributes are used in the same way as defined in the original >>>>>>>> subprotocol specification, also if the subprotocol is >>>>>>>> transported >>>>>>>> over a data channel and if the attribute is correspondingly >>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>> in a "a=dcsa" attribute. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There may be cases, where the usage of a subprotocol related >>>>>>>> media >>>>>>>> level attribute depends on the subprotocol's transport >>>>>>>> protocol. In >>>>>>>> such cases the subprotocol related usage of the attribute is >>>>>>>> expected >>>>>>>> to be described for the data channel transport. A data channel >>>>>>>> specific usage of a subprotocol attribute is expected to be >>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>> in the same document, which registers the subprotocol's >>>>>>>> identifier >>>>>>>> for data channel usage as described in Section 8.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This text makes sense when there is a clear distinction between >>>>>>>> subprotocol and protocol. Unfortunately, the way SDP has evolved >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> is no such clear distinction in many cases, such as RTP over UDP or >>>>>>>> TCP, etc. Those are combined into a single protocol value. While >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> can usually be parsed apart at slashes, there isn't good >>>>>>>> terminology >>>>>>>> for it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My point is that when I read the above, I don't know how it applies >>>>>>>> to, say, RTP attributes. Or does it only apply for attributes that >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> clearly defined for a *sub*protocol? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this is primarily that we lack well defined vocabulary for >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> of this. But I think it would be too much to expect this draft to >>>>>>>> *solve* the vocabulary problem. In lieu of doing so, maybe it >>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>> sufficient to give some concrete examples, even if they have to be >>>>>>>> hypothetical ones. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Juergen] Agree that it would be helpful to have more precise >>>>>>> definitions of the differences of the terms protocol and >>>>>>> subprotocol, >>>>>>> especially when those terms are used outside the scope of data >>>>>>> channels >>>>>>> (or Websockets). When only focusing on data channels the notion of a >>>>>>> "subprotocol" seems to be clearer - at least >>>>>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol explicitly refers to the "WebSocket >>>>>>> Subprotocol Name Registry" when specifying DCEP's "Protocol" >>>>>>> parameter. >>>>>>> (But draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel does not define what a data >>>>>>> channel's "subprotocol" is.) So far the sdpneg draft relatively >>>>>>> informally starts using the term "subprotocol" in the >>>>>>> introduction and >>>>>>> there refers to Websocket "subprotocols". Perhaps we should add the >>>>>>> term >>>>>>> "subprotocol" to the list of used terminology in section 3. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The sdpneg document, together with the data channel subprotocol >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> document (which defines the value of the a=dcmap attribute's >>>>>>> "subprotocol" parameter), should certainly give clear guidance on >>>>>>> how to >>>>>>> interpret SDP offers or answers like e.g.: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel >>>>>>> c=IN IP4 10.10.10.1 >>>>>>> a=max-message-size:100000 >>>>>>> a=sctp-port:5000 >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> a=dcmap:0 subprotocol="MSRP" >>>>>>> a=dcsa:0 accept-types:message/cpim text/plain >>>>>>> a=dcsa:0 framerate:... >>>>>>> a=dcsa:0 lang:... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An implementation receiving such an offer would need to decide >>>>>>> what to >>>>>>> do with the dcsa embedded framerate and lang attributes. Or, someone >>>>>>> implementing MSRP over data channel based services may need to >>>>>>> decide >>>>>>> whether or not to use these attributes, and if yes, how. >>>>>>> (I am using these two attributes just as hypothetical examples - >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> want to suggest that those may indeed be used for MSRP over data >>>>>>> channel >>>>>>> transport). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The msrp-usage-data-channel document doesn't mention these two >>>>>>> attributes. When looking at the IANA SDP attribute registry >>>>>>> tables, I >>>>>>> would find both attributes specified in RFC 4566. There, >>>>>>> "framerate" is >>>>>>> explicitly said to be defined only "for video media". Just to be >>>>>>> sure I >>>>>>> could additionally have a look at the MSRP specifying documents, RFC >>>>>>> 4975 and RFC 4976, but there would not find any text at all >>>>>>> related to >>>>>>> "framerate". So this case seems pretty clear and I would therefore >>>>>>> conclude that the "framerate" attribute should not be used for >>>>>>> MSRP, and >>>>>>> that a receiver of such an offer or answer should ignore it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When looking at the definition of the "lang" attribute in RFC 4566 I >>>>>>> would not see any explicit hint of what protocols this attribute >>>>>>> might >>>>>>> be used with, especially if "lang" could be used when negotiating an >>>>>>> MSRP session. When then looking at RFC 4975 I would indeed find >>>>>>> "lang" - >>>>>>> but not as SDP attribute, rather as XML tag parameter within an >>>>>>> example >>>>>>> MSRP message payload. Thus, the case of the "lang" attribute >>>>>>> might not >>>>>>> be as unambiguous as the one with the "framerate" attribute, but >>>>>>> here >>>>>>> too I think the typical choice would be to ignore that attribute >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> receiving such an offer or answer. >>>>>>> It seems to me that the two new "ignore" rules in section 5.2.5 of >>>>>>> sdpneg-08 may also be applied in these cases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Admittedly, these examples may seem a bit far-fetched, but would >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> go into the direction you had in mind? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. Note that using examples is just me grasping at straws, since a >>>>>> real solution looks like to big a problem for this draft to tackle by >>>>>> itself. I am entirely open to other ideas for how to deal with this. >>>>> [CNG] I don't see what the example buys? I don't see that the >>>>> behaviour >>>>> is any different between using additional attributes in the >>>>> datachannel >>>>> vs. the non data channel case. E.g. for >>>>> >>>>> c=IN IP4 10.10.10.1 >>>>> m=message 7394 TCP/MSRP * >>>>> a=accept-types:message/cpim text/plain text/html >>>>> a=lang:.... >>>>> a=framerate:... >>>>> The ignore behaviour would be the same. >>>>> In the above example the attributes are scoped by the m= line. In the >>>>> data channel case the attributes are scoped by the relevant a=dcmap: >>>>> line. >>>> >>>> My concern is that SDP has no notion of subprotocol, even though in >>>> practice it shows up lots of places. It only has a notion of the >>>> protocol field in the m-line. Beyond that a *convention* has developed >>>> to denote a layering within the protocol through use of "/". AFAIK >>>> this isn't formally written down anywhere. >>>> >>>> So, in principle we could define an RTP sub-protocol for use over a >>>> data channel. And then we could talk about using the attributes that >>>> apply to RTP in dcsa for a channel using RTP. But note there is no >>>> formal definition of the *protocol*s where RTP attributes are relevant. >>>> >>>> A lot of the very old stuff was just sloppy. To be fair, it was >>>> probably good enough for the cases in front of them at the time, and >>>> they weren't yet in a position to foresee how things would evolve. It >>>> is just another example of how old stuff rots and has to be refreshed >>>> from time to time. >>>> >>>> But I don't think *this* draft is the place to fix it. So, in lieu of >>>> doing that I'm just looking for some way to clarify things. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Paul >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 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 >
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-… Bo Burman
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Schwarz, Albrecht (Nokia - DE)
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-chan… Paul Kyzivat