Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON
Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 17:54 UTC
Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AE621F8B45 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xgdQ11LfNiXX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E896A21F8B3F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so1034225iab.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x8hPoic+WWvhiCPfAUSO4GNG8nyDFBLub7ANcmxL59Y=; b=tovnYZMre6K8wmAAz2COGplBafqsVmwEuNeGSsBPIJme/efrglLvA/oVMnrzh1sqZF bBcvqdqhXFVRSVgOUUPf4lVHjY8Oo7uAOA5xOgFiRduu7Z6Zahvtchso/R6ZmI01kPrY tqUilh1TzCavIU7fb45wOGVF9Gx2wm8aQZZcI=
Received: by 10.231.9.40 with SMTP id j40mr1820048ibj.2.1316541435274; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net. [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ek22sm3048517ibb.12.2011.09.20.10.57.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E78D47C.70405@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:59:24 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110818 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <4E71927C.1090606@skype.net> <CALiegfnEaYVsZpKQOoVtT=2gGCzssX79pxLGo7H2Ez0GcMTG-A@mail.gmail.com> <0BF9ED5E-5B73-4316-AE95-0D85B73CBD19@phonefromhere.com> <CALiegfnE9G_vxXDha7pb57pmd=rovLOz=-uWTOirSPDV-pLyMg@mail.gmail.com> <20110915140248.4cc17977@lminiero-acer> <4E71F90D.8030302@alvestrand.no> <F0A2E045-68FC-4DC0-A0E8-BF29E7690FAF@acmepacket.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0BC11A7E43@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E78CC51.5080706@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E78CC51.5080706@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:54:51 -0000
Login to the simulator may mean no login needed to other credentials; further, this is where some debate over ICE or... http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ...browser in the simulator. Maybe we can SSRC the XPointer XML, and focus on that interop with OAuth MAC in single UDP over S/MIME or IPv6. Again, where this makes sense: OAuth MAC plus S/MIME TOGETHER. I bet the browsers devs can guess the default. On 09/20/2011 10:24 AM, Dzonatas Sol wrote: > In the simulated room, the board posted the note-well such that all > participants, even unknown, had this much quickness in resolution > rather than be stuck in cap-neg in more blind situations. > > On the media plane, we may be able to make those "styx" notices, much > like iNotify, yet these are one of those things that just works and > still needs improvements, like this. > > From the top, the API needs the JSON-to-XPointer device driver for > late binds; use-case: default emulation of scripted UI-only with > saved-state. > > Is there some default for display size? Shop owners may want some > signal sent that switches modes on all display units from after-hours > to real-time. With some notices, where it makes sense, you don't > always want to-allow augmentation of posted note-well displays. > > On 09/20/2011 09:41 AM, Elwell, John wrote: >> I agree with the points Hadriel makes. And I would add another point. >> SDP sometimes has several ways of doing the same thing, some >> official, some de facto. For example, cap-neg as the official way of >> negotiating a profile (say AVP versus SAVP) and well-practiced but >> simpler techniques for doing the same thing. By having JSON at the >> API, it is left to the application (JS or server) to decide which >> techniques to use when federating, according to the environment it >> finds itself in. I believe this is the right way to go. Please don't >> lock this into the browser and force cap-neg (say) on everyone. >> >> John >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan >>> Sent: 16 September 2011 19:29 >>> To: Harald Alvestrand >>> Cc:<rtcweb@ietf.org> >>> Subject: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: About >>> defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)) >>> >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> >>>> The disadvantage of parsing to another structure (I am fond >>> of JSON myself) is that one has to maintain a data definition >>> for the format being parsed to, a defined transform between >>> that and the "canonical SDP structure" has to be implemented >>> in user space when one does SDP interoperability, both of >>> those have to be updated for every SDP extension that someone >>> defines somewhere, and one is still not free to define >>> extensions on the non-SDP side if one still requires the >>> ability to map them into SDP. >>>> If one uses the "native" SDP format, which is the format in >>> which every extension to the format gets documented, the >>> browsers are the ones who *have* to parse it (although others >>> are likely to). >>> >>> >>> Right so the above paragraphs get to the heart of the matter, >>> methinks. Ultimately we need W3C to define an API, and the >>> API has to provide a means of learning RTP/media info from >>> the browser and commanding the browser to perform certain >>> things with RTP/media. One could expose this API as a true >>> data structure, or as a long string of tokens to be >>> parsed/serialized back/forth. If the latter, then the >>> choices are basically JSON or SDP. And SDP seems >>> advantageous because it appears to be the least work for the >>> simple use-cases, because the javascript could just copy >>> back/forth the SDP between the browser and server. In other >>> words you're optimizing for the very simple use-cases, in >>> exchange for making it more complicated for the advanced >>> use-cases. Right? >>> >>> OK, that's a laudable goal. And I recognize that the >>> decision has basically already been made, and nothing's going >>> to change it. >>> >>> But email's free... so for the sake of posterity (and email >>> archiving) here're some reasons not to use SDP anyway: >>> 1) Incorporating SDP and the offer/answer model into the >>> Browser and W3C API inexorably ties the W3C to the IETF >>> MMUSIC working group for all time. So far, I had been going >>> on the assumption the IETF would be defining what the RTP >>> library had to do/expose, while W3C would define the API. >>> But if the API includes SDP offer/answer, that portion is the >>> IETF's domain too, afaik. Anything the W3C wants to do in >>> the future for that has to go through the IETF, not just >>> IANA. (right?) >>> >>> 2) This isn't just about JSON vs. SDP - it's about SDP >>> *offer/answer*. SDP offer/answer wasn't meant to be an API >>> between an application and its RTP library - it's a >>> *protocol* between applications. One side-effect of this is >>> it has historic state. For example, if an SDP offer contains >>> two media lines, and one media is removed, the number of SDP >>> media lines don't reduce back to one - EVER. So if >>> PeerConnection.removeStream() is invoked, the Browser needs >>> to remember there was that stream and signal it in SDP as >>> disabled for all time, until PeerConnection is closed. If >>> addStream() is invoked later, it could/could-not re-use that >>> same (disabled) media line, or add a new one. >>> >>> As another example, if a new SDP offer is sent out in SIP and >>> gets rejected with a 488, the session reverts to the >>> previously agreed SDP state. The Browser would therefore >>> have to keep state of previous SDP and revert to it to handle >>> this case. For example, if my Javascript started with only >>> an audio MediaStream in PeerConnection and later added a >>> video MediaStream to it, the new SDP offer would contain two >>> media lines - if the offer gets rejected with 488, how is >>> that communicated to the Browser and what will the browser do? >>> >>> 3) You might well want information conveyed across that "API" >>> that is not meant to be sent on the wire in SDP - things you >>> don't want defined by IANA as SDP tokens. For example, you >>> may want to provide packet counts, jitter, latency, and other >>> meta-information about individual RTP codecs. Using JSON >>> allows you to have data member variables which will not get >>> serialized into SDP, but are purely for the javascript's use, >>> while still within the referential tree structure of the >>> media stream info. Or they may be for sending to peers, but >>> simply not for SDP. (like you could send the jitter/latency >>> info through the signaling channel) >>> >>> 4) Obviously if the application as a whole needs to do SDP >>> offer/answer, then *someone* will have to implement it >>> correctly, including the state-related stuff. It could be >>> the browser or the javascript that do this. Chrome may do a >>> perfect job of that in the browser, afaik. But there are >>> other browser vendors, including niche ones such as Dolphin >>> and Skyfire. What are the odds they all get it right the first time? >>> >>> So which would you rather have updating an SDP engine, if one >>> is even needed... or updating "every SDP extension that >>> someone defines somewhere": the javascript which is written >>> by the developer that knows what they want when they want it, >>> and can update their code by updating their javascript (or >>> not if they don't need to); or the browsers which are written >>> by companies not under the javascript developer's control, at >>> a time of the browser companies' choosing? >>> >>> Obviously for some things the browser will have to be updated >>> regardless, for example to understand rather than just ignore >>> new JSON entries, to provide new codecs, etc. But not all >>> new SDP attributes require changes in the media plane, nor >>> encoding into JSON. In fact, a lot doesn't - some of it's >>> higher-application info, not really for the RTP library, and >>> more of it's coming in the future. >>> >>> -hadriel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtcweb mailing list >>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> > > -- --- <i>The wheel.</i metro-link=t dzonatasolyndra>
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Bernard Aboba
- [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Victor Pascual
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Prakash
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for … gao.yang2
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Soo-Hyun Choi
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Henry Sinnreich
- [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was R… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: About de… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… cbran
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: Abou… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb default … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: Abou… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Henry Sinnreich
- [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signaling… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Randell Jesup
- [rtcweb] SCTP for data channels in rtcweb Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] SCTP for data channels in rtcweb Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saul Ibarra Corretge