Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 04 December 2021 20:58 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 4954B3A089A; Sat, 4 Dec 2021 12:58:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pT3gcir-cUJu; Sat, 4 Dec 2021 12:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92a.google.com (mail-ua1-x92a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5AE53A0886; Sat, 4 Dec 2021 12:57:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92a.google.com with SMTP id o1so12170148uap.4; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 12:57:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tfO+AGTRypXJuFvNLWMmXcbL2Hz4oyiVhBdk00Wz6oQ=; b=GY+AsmHRZ9GVthuqv63b4okpYnJMZ1ZmPlXgldXYkoQXsgCQxPv2Ac4U/lwFUIe8Vi WmBGP+w1cuCJ7vL/k7nyvPlWLYYixfxkxqJzW0cOr3F3tNPyuoBWpYTLWOh0pgHbbTge VYiC41spVHdVZT+y1Jh2ciCdEYojtT/BbU15nc0CAbjx9d78wAU6/fd23yvKiaUiGS5o GuGmGFTqAV4iRpjHURqOWIOdtiSaTk6B//s9IAdsqPvPgkQa9+eoPEijvalZM+cZIpRN UlQsnwc6IuC8CFoaZwRPG7j02Rqkl6PODTyeLocF8VYjm7RC8DaedhKWheO4qlrvAokj M/BQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tfO+AGTRypXJuFvNLWMmXcbL2Hz4oyiVhBdk00Wz6oQ=; b=uKFHKui9f/ANoBValGgynAd1X4UsPgkfm1O93Ct2uB4GLA45sf6dwLOTBwQ/HErkp8 fuv2PM9qs+mtHSXwcPFIMvKYUxGwQdTdXc9pITWgSD57dNjgFMIV12ZG8PExMu/9p0EU GM3QFprSoqQYZ3316xC+QZOOz0arnjUPkAUiCfIpouKPfHHs8uTf/0bwY2uQfe+ZtBiD s4XVuMyPHfg6FKcVm9Hj6LRpgeU/7bPZTVKXpBkiv5rymzwJao6aOA2+LFNy938xt8T4 sgk7OdODf2r2q7sh24J5s3hZtQEU8jd1ow5pG0lqW052HRvN92FwE/gLLgddXWENwvgd Jtbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532y3nuuySkYyF5SmXphkOBGpYE6+kcvPDN97IRUQtNTUwXEd+PK KnrsF3FoJsIWVoxXbNtGvN84CXmWUKShKeFbntNh/O4o
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8UiKLT6Cq/T+EIOqhGVKK6bBdEvewKMy5xciq8o4UeuoGZ5dpl93Itdrru7XY5V51cLjKjEWbKBK1VZtxtPI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:f12:: with SMTP id v18mr28681882vss.0.1638651472981; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 12:57:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <443b55f8-9d42-6728-de87-36a8392aaa10@cisco.com> <CAOLzse3aNuKCp9jSXyzAdLjpaCZUzL4K071k3zLTWoE3Fry-BA@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB4441163C03DA3FA9A88B0114939F9@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOLzse1JMd=re=96OQR1qD6wj_SJnwRdUGAzU69k4v=gr4LcvQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB44419673CDC9E5C1CD76F04593609@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOLzse3e0bmNwkz_2T6QvpQYs5Q3dqB8YnEoVQp=YRPhGP+6Vw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxs25qiRvvFZDzda2CWun3MAwZxz8WrGYJdDHEgdB1d0ng@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB44415ADB77F0EA6B8732DB2393619@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOLzse3yFO+iAWEeqrv_WZTZZi0xO3C3pGL+G13-59N4+kgj-A@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB44418958A9C748993B42342293649@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxuwy6dJdZfvmHtTSwdffz0efiWRkf6fVGLoDJD2kgayfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOLzse26gsHrTfffeFanKPh+zBUvo4bB29MeuKsVWrq2gyq-2w@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB44419D003F32B7992D8208BB93669@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <da187426-670e-8a00-cfb5-d562213dcf7d@cisco.com> <HE1PR07MB444195E3707CCABC34326B2E93699@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxtnAg+XwRmHyTczQGByhu6oeAjBmgV_BD5vgbedD1pJpw@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR07MB4447D45204EFAEF7F7928E37936A9@VI1PR07MB4447.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <HE1PR07MB4441B9EB1CC4682AF0E65B7D936A9@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxuz+yGSakmsUv9UjFUnruROG2ZCOqTQ3ix0b8i4snZs8Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxuz+yGSakmsUv9UjFUnruROG2ZCOqTQ3ix0b8i4snZs8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2021 12:57:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZJY2g0WRBMT3x=pngkSk+j6=_-_muUgPWwe5f4tzhvZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f536d205d2584610"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/xXaY3DC25tJ05a8-lpp2nMZwqOk>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 04 Dec 2021 20:58:01 -0000
Thanks for the extra effort to clear this up. I've reviewed the change between -04 (which the IESG approved) and -08 (the current version) and find the changes are largely informative only, so I don't think a second IETF-wide Last Call is necessary. I'm going to indicate such to the IESG and give them a few days to object; absent any such objections, I'll release it from its IESG hold in the RFC Editor queue. -MSK On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:08 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote: > Thank you! > _____________ > Roman Shpount > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 4:32 PM Christer Holmberg < > christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Based on Roman’s comments, I have submitted a new version (-08) of >> 8843bis. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> *From:* mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Christer Holmberg >> *Sent:* perjantai 3. joulukuuta 2021 11.19 >> *To:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> >> *Cc:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic-chairs@ietf.org; >> mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) >> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06 >> >> >> >> Hi Roman, >> >> >> >> Regarding the nits in 7.4.1 and the missing comma in 7.6, I will fix as >> suggested. >> >> >> >> Regarding the “rewriting” wording, I think it should be either “e.g., by >> rewriting” or “and e.g., rewrite”. Simply “e.g., rewrite” does not sound >> right to me. >> >> >> >> But, someone who is more fluent in English than I am can of course >> correct me :) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> *From:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> >> *Sent:* perjantai 3. joulukuuta 2021 1.21 >> *To:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >> *Cc:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic-chairs@ietf.org; >> mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) >> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06 >> >> >> >> Hi Christer, >> >> >> >> I have reviewed the changes and there are a couple of nits: >> >> >> >> In 7.4.1: >> >> "answeris" should be "answer is" >> >> >> >> In 7.6 >> >> "In this situation the endpoint" should be "In this situation, the >> endpoint" (missing comma). >> >> >> >> "Therefore, the 3PCC controller SHOULD take actions to mitigate this >> problem, e.g., by rewriting the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid >> initial BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE offer to >> a UA." >> >> >> >> should be >> >> >> >> "Therefore, the 3PCC controller SHOULD take actions to mitigate this >> problem, e.g., rewrite the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid initial >> BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE offer to a UA." >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> _____________ >> Roman Shpount >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:54 AM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg= >> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I just submitted a new version (-07), which implements the changes based >> on Paul’s comments. >> >> >> >> Thank You to everyone who provided comments and input! :) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> *From:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> >> *Sent:* maanantai 29. marraskuuta 2021 20.13 >> *To:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; >> mmusic-chairs@ietf.org >> *Cc:* mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) >> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/29/21 11:58, Christer Holmberg wrote: >> >> Chairs, >> >> >> >> Can I submit a new version of the document, with the changes suggested >> below? >> >> >> Please do. Also, did Paul Kyzivat's comments get resolved / updated ? >> >> Thanks >> >> -- Flemming >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Christer >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Justin Uberti <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com> >> <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, November 29, 2021 1:46 AM >> *To:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> <roman@telurix.com> >> *Cc:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> >> <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org> <mmusic@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) >> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06 >> >> >> >> Looks good to me too. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 2:13 AM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote: >> >> This still works for me. >> >> _____________ >> Roman Shpount >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 4:33 PM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg= >> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Is everyone else ok with the changes? >> >> >> >> Change #1: >> >> >> >> Change ‘Offer’ and ‘Answer’ to ‘offer’ and ‘answer’ throughout the >> document. >> >> >> >> >> >> Change #2: >> >> >> >> OLD: >> >> >> >> In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be >> >> established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing >> >> session and an endpoint that is currently not part of an ongoing >> >> session. The endpoint that is part of a session will generate a >> >> subsequent SDP Offer that will be forwarded to the other endpoint by >> >> a 3PCC controller. The endpoint that is not part of a session will >> >> process the Offer as an initial SDP Offer. >> >> >> >> The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261>] allows a User Agent >> >> Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without an SDP body >> >> (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE). In such cases, the >> >> User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP Offer in the associated >> >> 200 (OK) response. If the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP session, >> >> it will include a subsequent offer in the 200 (OK) response. The >> >> offer will be received by a 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded >> >> to another User Agent (UA). If the UA is not part of an ongoing SIP >> >> session, it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer. >> >> >> >> NEW: >> >> >> >> In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be >> >> established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing >> >> session and an endpoint that is not currently part of an ongoing >> >> session. In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session, >> >> while expecting an initial offer, can receive an SDP offer created as >> >> a subsequent offer. The text below describes how this can occur with >> >> the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)[RFC3261 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261>]. >> >> >> >> SIP allows a User Agent Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without >> >> an SDP body (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE). In such cases, >> >> the User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP offer in the associated >> >> 200 (OK) response, and when the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP session, >> >> this offer will be a subsequent offer. This offer will be received >> >> by the 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded to another User Agent (UA). >> >> When that UA is not part of an ongoing SIP session, as noted above, >> >> it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Justin Uberti >> *Sent:* torstai 25. marraskuuta 2021 1.16 >> *To:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >> *Cc:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; mmusic < >> mmusic@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) >> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06 >> >> >> >> Good suggestion, that works for me. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 3:17 AM Christer Holmberg < >> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Maybe we instead of saying “as described below” could say ”The text below >> describes how this can occur with SIP”. >> >> >> >> That way the 1st paragraph remains independent from SIP. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> *From:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> >> *Sent:* tiistai 23. marraskuuta 2021 20.54 >> *To:* Justin Uberti <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com> >> *Cc:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; Flemming >> Andreasen <fandreas=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) >> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06 >> >> >> >> Justin, >> >> >> >> Part of the reason for the non-SIP language and renaming the section was >> to make it clearer that it can apply to WebRTC, not just SIP. I think the >> goal here is to come up with the language that can be referenced from the >> JSEP draft, which should reduce your work. >> >> _____________ >> Roman Shpount >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 1:29 PM Justin Uberti < >> juberti@alphaexplorationco.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 2:00 AM Christer Holmberg < >> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >>>1) for some reason, "offer" has been replaced with "Offer" throughout >> the document. This is a minor nit, but seems incorrect to me. >> >> >> >> I did that, because in the previous version we already used "BUNDLE >> Offer", so I thought I'd do it to be consistent. >> > >> > The problem though is that "answer" still is in lowercase so that >> introduces its own inconsistency. >> >> Good catch. I was actually going to change that too, but now realized I >> forgot to. >> >> I have no strong opinion regarding whether we use upper- or lowercase, as >> long as we are consistent. >> >> > Generally I think we should avoid capitalization of common words to >> avoid confusion. >> >> I can change everything to lowercase. >> >> >> >> Sounds good. >> >> >> --- >> >> >>>2) The first two paragraphs of 7.6 say similar things and it's not >> clear to me why they both exist. Here is my suggested revision: >> >> >> >> The first paragraph is more general, while the second paragraph >> describes how it is realized in SIP. >> > >> > Understood, but I feel like that intent was not totally clear in the >> current text. >> >> I am mostly fine with your suggested modification. >> >> However, as we don't really talk about "offer semantics" elsewhere in the >> document, perhaps: >> >> "In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session can receive >> an SDP offer, created as a >> subsequent offer, while expecting an initial offer, as described below." >> >> >> >> That works. It might be easier to understand with the "while expecting an >> initial offer" clause first: >> >> >> >> "In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session, while >> expecting an initial offer, can receive an SDP offer created as a >> >> subsequent offer, as described below." >> >> >> >> But I am fine either way. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> >> >> OLD: >> >> In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be >> established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing >> session and an endpoint that is currently not part of an ongoing >> session. The endpoint that is part of a session will generate a >> subsequent SDP Offer that will be forwarded to the other endpoint by >> a 3PCC controller. The endpoint that is not part of a session will >> process the Offer as an initial SDP Offer. >> >> The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [ >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261] allows a User Agent >> Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without an SDP body >> (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE). In such cases, the >> User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP Offer in the associated >> 200 (OK) response. If the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP session, >> it will include a subsequent offer in the 200 (OK) response. The >> offer will be received by a 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded >> to another User Agent (UA). If the UA is not part of an ongoing SIP >> session, it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer. >> >> NEW: >> >> In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be >> established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing >> session and an endpoint that is not currently part of an ongoing >> session. In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session >> can receive SDP with subsequent offer semantics in an initial >> SDP Offer, as described below. >> >> The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [ >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261] allows a User Agent >> Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without an SDP body >> (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE). In such cases, the >> User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP offer in the associated >> 200 (OK) response, and when the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP >> session, >> this offer will be a subsequent offer. This offer will be received >> by the 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded to another User Agent >> (UA). >> When that UA is not part of an ongoing SIP session, as noted above, >> it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer. >> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:16 PM Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=mailto: >> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> Greetings MMUSIC >> >> We previously submitted draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis for publication, >> however subsequently, the issue of 3rd Party Call Control came up and as a >> result of that, Section 7.6 has been updated accordingly. >> >> We are hereby starting a 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 only in >> draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06. >> >> If you have any comments on Section 7.6, please send those to the >> document authors and the MMUSIC mailing list by Wednesday November 24, >> 2021. If you review it but do not have any comments, please send a note to >> that effect as well. >> >> Thanks >> >> -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair) >> _______________________________________________ >> mmusic mailing list >> mailto: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 >> >> _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >
- [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Conside… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Keith Drage
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg