Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com> Fri, 05 December 2014 20:18 UTC
Return-Path: <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCF51A0151 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:18:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ZfRsuc1bSgpO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:18:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p02.blackberry.com (smtp-p02.blackberry.com [208.65.78.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C920F1A0143 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-pop.rim.net (HELO XCT103CNC.rim.net) ([10.65.161.203]) by mhs215cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 05 Dec 2014 15:18:01 -0500
Received: from XMB111CNC.rim.net ([fe80::fcd6:cc6c:9e0b:25bc]) by XCT103CNC.rim.net ([fe80::b8:d5e:26a5:f4d6%17]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:18:00 -0500
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, "Krasimir D. Kolarov" <kolarov@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
Thread-Index: AQHQEJCKBITgiQUj50CzzuygMU2TV5yBtE0AgAAFUYD//648QA==
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:18:00 +0000
Message-ID: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359DA5@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <C5A55329-4A5F-4507-8D9E-CA6AA99C6C27@apple.com> <CAOW+2duW-AWJMrRKiazh9tX7HQB4BXiSAMkOwngDn39WfM5xfg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2duW-AWJMrRKiazh9tX7HQB4BXiSAMkOwngDn39WfM5xfg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.250]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359DA5XMB111CNCrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4_GWEBtkTQfR4Lj0tRCdinCD0Yo
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:18:15 -0000
I don’t support the proposed text either, and +1 on the two points below. I would like to point out few issues and request that: (all requests are independent) a) we have a discussion on mandating codec versus decoder. There was apparently little to no time at the meeting to discuss this and prior discussions on this topic did not include the three categories that are now considered. b) The browser and non-browser categories are not bundled together when making the decision. If there is no intention to revisit the browser category, I would propose that non-browser shall support H.264 (reasoning: most if not all apps are WebRTC-compatible endpoints and can do whatever they chose, non-browser is a narrower category which could include devices which have to support H.264 anyway) c) the revisiting note should not have the same rules for the two codecs, as VP8 proponents are claiming that VP8 is free and AVC proponents are not, instead are claiming AVC is needed for legacy reasons. The note should be revisited before the draft becomes an RFC. Gaëlle From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:41 PM To: Krasimir D. Kolarov Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec I also do not support the draft proposal for the following reasons: 1. The proposal imposes a dual MTI obligation on devices and applications. We should expect this recommendation to be widely ignored in practice because it offers no interoperability benefits, while increasing footprint and adding unnecessary liability/fees. The RFC 6919 "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" is appropriate here. Definition: The phrase "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" is used to indicate requirements that are needed to meet formal review criteria (e.g., mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms), when these mechanisms are too inconvenient for implementers to actually implement. 2. The codec standardization process is important from a legal and IPR disclosure point of view. VP8 has not yet completed this process. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Krasimir D. Kolarov <kolarov@apple.com<mailto:kolarov@apple.com>> wrote: To re-iterate what I said at the mike during the meeting, at this point we can not support this draft, due to the existence of “unwilling to license" declaration on a technology required for compliance. The discussion on point 1 below during the meeting and on the list has not changed that situation. Krasimir > On Dec 5, 2014, at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <TurnerS@ieca.com<mailto:TurnerS@ieca.com>> wrote: > > All, > > At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise." The compromise text that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]). > > This message serves to confirm the sense of the room. > > In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR, Time, and Trigger: > > 1) IPR: > > Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser implementations. > > Response: IPR concerns on this topic are well known. There is even a draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8: draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation. The sense of the room was still that adopting the compromise text was appropriate. > > 2) Time: > > 2.1) Time to consider decision: > > Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the opportunity to attend in person. > > Response: Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs. More importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is not required to be part of the process. > > 2.2) Time to consider text: > > Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered. > > Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264 was among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months ago. All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss the proposal. > > 3) Trigger: > > Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because it’s promising that the future IETF will update this specification. > > Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time. > > > After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video. In keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list. > > If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do by December 19th. > > Cheers, > spt (as chair) > > [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html > [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html > [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..." > [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Krasimir D. Kolarov
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Mohammed Raad
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Nathan Egge
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Nathan Egge
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Gustavo Garcia
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Ron
- [rtcweb] Interop *and* robustness Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Maire Reavy
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Simon Perreault
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Alexandre GOUAILLARD
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Victor Pascual Avila
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… stephane.proust
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Erik Lagerway
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confir… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: co… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: co… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: co… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: co… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was: Re:… Florian Weimer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was:… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: co… Randell Jesup
- [rtcweb] WebRTC endpoint categories Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was:… Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was:… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Andrew Allen
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was:… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was:… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC endpoint categories Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options Florian Weimer
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was:… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was:… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options Richard Barnes
- [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: H.26… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: … Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: … Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: … Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC endpoint categories Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] What is the judging criteria? (Was: … Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Ross Finlayson
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] Unhappy People (was: confirming sens… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [rtcweb] Please change the subject! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… John Leslie
- [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Simon Pietro Romano
- Re: [rtcweb] revisiting why WebRTC is succeeding … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti co… Iñaki Baz Castillo