Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client]
"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Thu, 08 September 2011 04:33 UTC
Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 65DD521F8AFC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 dHLnFPM9+Tao for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A75B21F8AF1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail06.sonusnet.com (sonusmail06.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.156]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p884ZT31024362; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 00:35:29 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail06.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 00:34:59 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC6DE0.A949D016"
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:04:55 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0906@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E67EED2.2000207@skype.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client]
Thread-Index: AcxtrMQfnV/jTVtjQ2ynrmKrMW+h2wAL5brw
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <89177AB2-F721-47E4-8471-2180EDA10615@voxeo.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB34D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com><101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net> <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E668FB3.9020601@skype.net> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F08FE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E67EED2.2000207@skype.net>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2011 04:34:59.0798 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB1F9F60:01CC6DE0]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client]
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: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 04:33:18 -0000
Matthew, Could you please let me know why early media MUST exist in browser to browser communication. Remote ringback (18x with SDP) is less used in lot of existing SIP deployments as well. I'm talking about RFC 3261 User Agent (UA) functionality in browser which helps browser to browser real-time communication using RTCWeb1.0. SIP phone is very different from SIP UA which is using HTTP as a configuration interface. Also, RTCWEB client + RTCWeb server makes to feel a modern exchange in web world (Plain Old Telephony System phone with exchange architecture). I think so because POTS phones are dumb which does not know its identity and every event like offhook, onhook has to passed to exchange whereas RTCWeb client (browser) has to pass every event to webserver and webserver has whole intelligence to make it work. In case it is local exchange (same site like skype), there will be no need of signaling but the identity is outside the single site, it is not defined and it is outside the scope of RTCWEb. Please read inline. Thanks Partha From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 3:53 AM To: Ravindran Parthasarathi Cc: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client] On 9/7/11 10:29 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote: Matthew, When I asked for SIP, I have meant RFC 3261 only. As I pointed out earlier, this is the top of a very slippery slope. Certainly you must have meant 3261 + early media + PRACK (for instance), yes? The basic reason for asking SIP is to make the basic call works between browser to browser across web servers. SIP is in no way required to make this happen. [Partha] Please explain in more detail why so. Without SIP in browser, it is not going happen. Totally disagree. Innovative application is going to be proprietary whether it is HTTP or SIP or any other protocol for that matter. True. But having to reverse-engineer out the phone part is really painful for the application developer who is trying to build something else. [Partha] I have worked in multiple SIP UA implementation which is not restricted to telecom or unified communication as part of one of best selling SIP UA stack company. I'm really wondering why phone to be reverse Engineered. I'm wondering why browser is not possible to acts as SIP UA. My reasoning are as follows: SIP makes browser more intelligence compare to dump signaling mechanism like MEGACO and browser acts as MG. SIP in the browser makes the browser less *flexible* than an API with more direct control over the internal objects (camera, codec, network connection) and yet no more intelligent, as the browser has a runtime that can be programmed to do anything you want at the client side. [Partha] I'm talking abt SIP UA framework which provides Javascript API. There is no flexibility issue here because Javascript API will have all the control which you are interested. The importance of basic call interop is that there is no need of many individual id like skype id, Google id and yahoo id by everyone in the world to communicate others. I wish to have single id like e-mail id to be maintained by browser-to-browser users to communicate with others. This isn't going to happen, and is even closer to my fears about "IMAP in the browser" expressed earlier. [Partha] they are different. SIP helps to interop for basic call with other existing realtime application in Enterprise & Telecom provider. So what? I hope people understand that RTCWEB could be about so much more than enterprise and telecom providers doing two-party phone calls. Among other things, you can build augmented reality systems out of it (see how Flash streaming has been used similarly), multi-party experiences that aren't calls (Google hangouts), and many other applications we haven't even thought of yet... as long as we don't cripple the APIs. There is no need to build two different signaling logic in VoIP servers for each service. Your own example of Bridge line appearance will need two implementation by the single vendor because desktop application or hardphone implementation based on SIP and browser based implementation is depend on HTTP metadata. It is possible to avoided by having one signaling protocol. It doesn't even work over that "one signaling protocol", so that doesn't help. And again, there is no reason that a web site providing RTC applications to/from a browser need necessarily be serving "SIP phones" as clients as well. Maybe that just isn't the business they're in. In RTCWEB does not standardize the signaling protocol interface between browsers, the interop across webservers is next to impossible Totally disagree. We need to standardize the *media transport* between the browsers, and W3C needs to standardize the *API* by which we can send Javascript to the browser that executes the same way on every browser, but that doesn't mean the signaling protocol needs to be specified any more than IETF needed to intervene to ensure that the XML or JSON data that goes between your browser and Gmail is the same as the data that goes between your browser and Yahoo mail when you're using each to compose email messages. [Partha] Please note that I'm talking about viewer about partha.com to start the real-time communication with partha with his (Android) browser if they are interested. To achieve this, partha.com webdeveloper has no need to build call control in case SIP exists in both browsers. and it will be restricted to single webserver (company) only. Disagree. Just like Gmail and Yahoo mail can send messages to each other's users over a standard protocol for federation, so can RTCWEB. In fact, SIP is probably a great choice for inter-provider trunking. And conveniently, we plan to support the same *media transport* that other SIP devices use (RTP), so there'll be even more interoperability than just browser-to-browser federated between providers. Please let me know in case I'm missing something here. See above. Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Dan York
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Olle E Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Dan York
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Igor Faynberg
- [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE:… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Robert O'Callahan
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Robert O'Callahan
- Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client ac… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Randell Jesup
- [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate (and offer/answer) Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Christopher Blizzard
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate (and offer/answer) Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Christopher Blizzard
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Randell Jesup
- [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Michael Procter
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- [rtcweb] Meeting Bridge and Webex link for Sept 8… Sohel Khan
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate Christopher Blizzard
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser? Aaron Clauson
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Alan Johnston
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Alan Johnston
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser? Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Stefan Håkansson LK
- [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP … Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: … Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: … Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: … Peter Saint-Andre
- [rtcweb] signaling protocol SHANMUGALINGAM SIVASOTHY
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser? Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser? Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser? Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and o… Dan Wing