Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> Fri, 15 March 2013 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=878646dd34=aallen@blackberry.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 7A04021F886D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.039
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_LOAN=2.3, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 FZjWaO31zp5u for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mhs060cnc.rim.net (mhs060cnc.rim.net [208.65.73.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D78B21F887F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 0a41282f-b7fa06d000002431-0f-5143367b6fc5
Received: from XCT103ADS.rim.net (xct103ads.rim.net [10.67.111.44]) by mhs060cnc.rim.net (SBG) with SMTP id C8.52.09265.B7633415; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:55:55 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XMB104ADS.rim.net ([fe80::2494:a63d:e3:723b]) by XCT103ADS.rim.net ([fe80::c8f6:ae2e:c42b:3614%21]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:55:55 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
To: "R.Jesske@telekom.de" <R.Jesske@telekom.de>, "koen.vos@skype.net" <koen.vos@skype.net>, "espeberg@cisco.com" <espeberg@cisco.com>, "stephane.proust@orange.com" <stephane.proust@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: AQHOIHAgQ3Oi2P7DjEKDSnUvQoKufpilc9aAgAAGtgCAAH5yAP//tpYYgADR0CCAAFbNYA==
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:55:54 +0000
Message-ID: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D2BB34@XMB104ADS.rim.net>
References: <c686ee114a494e6ca76354227f92423e@DFM-CO1MBX15-04.exchange.corp.microsoft.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D2B178@XMB104ADS.rim.net> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D16E4408A5A@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D16E4408A5A@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.67.110.253]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrKKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC5Zyvo1tt5hxocO6ngcWXhmSL1p/fmC2a 7nSxWaz9185u0TrjCpvFka1rmR3YPKb83sjqsWTJTyaPlmcn2TxuPZjE5tH2UiGANaqB0SYp saQsODM9T9/OJjEvL78ksSRVISW1ONlWySc1PTFHIaAosywxuVLBJbM4OScxMze1SEkhM8VW yURJoSAnMTk1NzWvxFYpsaAgNS9FyY5LAQPYAJVl5imk5iXnp2TmpdsqeQb761pYmFrqGirZ 6SZ08mTMPbCZseD7TsaK7b1/WRsYp8xg7GLk5JAQMJGY2fqaFcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DASkaJ 9l8zWCCczYwSUxsus4BUsQloSew/PJ0JJCEicIRR4mrvPLAEs0CCRMeipcwgtrBAvMTkzndg tghQfMqPOUA2B5AdJvHrEBdImEVAVWLBpp/sIDavgIfEzE1voZa9YpR49L6dEaSeUyBaYuvv fJAaRgFZid1nrzNBrBKXuPVkPhPE1QISS/acZ4awRSVePv4H9Y2ixN+931kh6vUkbkydwgZh a0ssW/iaGWKvoMTJmU9YJjCKzUIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKKUTA3o9jAzCA5L1mvKDNXLy+1 ZBMjKN04aujvYHz73uIQowAHoxIPb5KYc6AQa2JZcWXuIUYJDmYlEd53+kAh3pTEyqrUovz4 otKc1OJDjK7AUJnILMWdnA9MhXkl8cYGBrg5SuK8ZZpOgUIC6cDUlJ2aWpBaBDOHiYMTZA+X lEgxMMGkFiWWlmTEg9JgfDEwEUo1ME4P7n245zPf25y07v0pE6oeMfnG1V1J2ronWNsrV54l LbR2vriVw+qI3eqxese/z2tQSexfeWQ162UlhalNR6dxM7tHs92alBt4s7RbK1cgtLWg6al9 W/T37zsqjT493Dopf3W876TvqYXvrm2L3Xg+6Qmfg2jCvF/fJ383u33g6hxHG2XPLiWW4oxE Qy3mouJEAPud/rt4AwAA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "xavier.marjou@orange.com" <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:56:09 -0000

Roland

I have proposed that we add the following text to address the interoperability concerns

"If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to use it is recommended that they are also included in the offer in order to maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need for audio transcoding."

The MTI Audio Codecs are defined to ensure a basic level of interoperability and will need to be always supported for that reason. Support for additional audio codecs is an implementation and business case decision and the additional audio codecs that it makes sense to support will change over time (as codecs become obsolete and new ones are developed and deployed. So additional audio codecs should not be specified in the RTCweb RFCs.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de [mailto:R.Jesske@telekom.de] 
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:45 AM
To: Andrew Allen; koen.vos@skype.net; espeberg@cisco.com; stephane.proust@orange.com
Cc: xavier.marjou@orange.com; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: AW: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Hi Andrew,
but where will you start and where will you end.
The codec discussion appears now so why not try to solve this now?
And one proposal is to use these codecs and I fully support it.

Roland

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] Im 
> Auftrag von Andrew Allen
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. März 2013 22:10
> An: koen.vos@skype.net; espeberg@cisco.com; stephane.proust@orange.com
> Cc: xavier.marjou@orange.com; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>
>
> Koen is right that there are many more obstacles to RTCweb and legacy 
> network interop than just a common codec. First there will need to be 
> RTCweb signaling gateways to interface between the RTCweb signaling 
> and the legacy networks (SIP,
> H.323 etc) and there will need to be in place mechanisms for peering, 
> federation and address resolution between networks as well as service 
> agreements in place between the players.
>
> Until those are resolved supporting codecs used in those networks is 
> pointless.
>
> Andrew
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Koen Vos [mailto:koen.vos@skype.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 03:32 PM Central Standard Time
> To: Espen Berger (espeberg) <espeberg@cisco.com>om>; 
> stephane.proust@orange.com <stephane.proust@orange.com>
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>rg>; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN 
> <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time     request for
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>
> > It's interop with billions of mobile phones and with fixed
> terminals in legacy telephony services.
>
> The problem is that WebRTC and legacy services live in separate 
> networks: the open Web vs proprietary Telco networks.
>
> WebRTC connecting to a Telco network would have to go through a 
> Gateway.  The PSTN termination providers who run these Gateways 
> support G.711, G.729 and perhaps some other  codecs like iLBC.  They 
> do not, however, support the codecs you are advocating for.
>
> The lack of support for Transcoding-Free Operation by Telcos to the 
> rest of the world has been hurting interop voice quality for a long 
> time, but unfortunately we can't fix that here at the IETF.
>
> We can fit our cars with your costly railroad wheels, but you still 
> wouldn't let us on your tracks.
>
> koen.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> stephane.proust@orange.com
> Sent: 14. mars 2013 13:36
> To: Jean-Marc Valin
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>
> Hello
>
> The short list is aligned to what is specified in 3GPP
> (mobile) and CAT-iq (fixed). Check the related service specifications!
> The short list (AMR, AMR-WB, G.722) is a minimal subset of codecs to 
> minimize interop issues and transcoding costs for telco services.
> It's not a question of what's the favourite codec for a given 
> application. It's interop with billions of mobile phones and with 
> fixed terminals in legacy telephony services.
>
> Stéphane
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jmvalin@mozilla.com] Envoyé :
> jeudi 14 mars 2013 05:55 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS Cc :
> Andrew Allen; Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN; 
> rtcweb@ietf.org Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for 
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/13/2013 06:48 PM, stephane.proust@orange.com wrote:
> > The reason is simply that AMR and AMR-WB are supported in
> billions of
> > devices !
>
> Just curious, why exclude from the list other codecs with similar huge 
> deployment? I can think of at least:
> - - GSM-FR (mobile)
> - - Speex (Flash)
> - - G.729 (PSTN gateways)
> - - iLBC (PSTN gateways)
> - - G.726 (DECT)
> - - SILK (original non-Opus version in Skype)
>
> (sorry, if I missed someone's favorite codec in this list)
>
> It's not at all clear to me what's so special that makes AMR, AMR-WB 
> and G.722 different from the other codecs in the list above. Not that 
> I insist on shipping G.729 :-)
>
> Personally, I'd favor a draft that included a lot more codecs, 
> describing for each one the benefits of supporting it. Implementers 
> could then choose which of these they care about for their particular 
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
>
>         Jean-Marc
>
> > Stéphane
> >
> >
> > -----Message d'origine----- De : Andrew Allen 
> > [mailto:aallen@blackberry.com] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013
> > 23:41 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com; 
> > jmvalin@mozilla.com Cc : MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN;
> rtcweb@ietf.org Objet
> > : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
> > draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> >
> >
> > No this wouldn't be acceptable to me.
> >
> > I don't see a reason to push a particular set of Codecs
> over any other
> > set of codecs supported on the device. If the device supports the 
> > codecs and they are available to the browser then we should
> recommend
> > that they be offered in the negotiation.
> >
> > The marjou draft can advertise the merits and reasons why they are 
> > good codecs to support.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: stephane.proust@orange.com 
> > [mailto:stephane.proust@orange.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013
> > 05:14 PM Central Standard Time To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com 
> > <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>om>; jmvalin@mozilla.com
> <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
> > Cc: MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN <xavier.marjou@orange.com>om>;
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> > <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time     request for
> > draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> >
> > Dear Markus
> >
> > Thanks for your attempt to help !
> >
> > Of course each Telco can handle this directly with vendors and 
> > browsers manufacturers at business level. But I don't'think
> this need
> > of interoperability with mobile devices is specific to Orange.
> > I think all mobile operators will have the same issue and
> this is why
> > standardization exist. It's most cost and time efficient to
> have one
> > common way forward for all the industry.
> >
> > Then if the issue is that "conditional MUST/SHOULD are a too 
> > complicated requirement. We could also live as a compromise with a 
> > formulation that has already been suggested on the reflector:
> >
> > "If other suitable audio codecs are available to the
> browser to use it
> > is recommended that they are also included in the offer in order to 
> > maximize the possibility to establish the session without
> the need for
> > audio transcoding" If possible with the addition of This is
> especially
> > the case for AMR, AMR-WB for interoperability with mobile
> devices and
> > G.722 for interoperability with fixed DECT CAT-iq devices
> >
> > Would it have one chance to reach consensus ?
> >
> > I think this Group should at least make one small step so that the 
> > interoperability issue with mobile terminals be not fully
> ignored in
> > the RTC Web specification considering the huge number of deployed 
> > devices. At least something must be written on this !
> > G.711 which is the only codec in addition to OPUS for
> interoperability
> > purpose is not a proper answer to this.
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> > -----Message d'origine----- De : Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com 
> > [mailto:Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013
> > 22:37 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; jmvalin@mozilla.com; MARJOU 
> > Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc : rtcweb@ietf.org Objet : RE: [rtcweb]
> Agenda time
> > request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> >
> > Hi Stephane, Xavier,
> >
> > I understand the intent of your proposal. I'm not sure if
> the IETF is
> > the best venue for you to pursue it, however. Perhaps you
> as a mobile
> > operator should rather set it as a requirement to your
> mobile device
> > platforms that they open up the APIs to AMR and AMR-WB and that at 
> > least the in-built default browser needs to support it. If
> there are
> > enough operators setting such requirements directly to the
> device and
> > platform vendors, it probably has a bigger impact than an IETF RFC.
> > Getting that support for user-installed additional browsers
> might be
> > more difficult, but most mobile device users stick with the default 
> > browser anyway.
> >
> > The RTCWEB codec document needs to definitely explain this case and 
> > the benefits, but the conditional MUSTs or SHOULDs you are
> proposing
> > are perhaps a bit too complicated. Hmm, perhaps we need to do an 
> > _informational_ RFC as something like "Recommendations for
> WebRTC on
> > Mobile Devices" addressing the codec and perhaps other issues, that 
> > you could use as a reference in your requirements.
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org 
> >> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext 
> >> stephane.proust@orange.com Sent: 13 March, 2013 21:37 To:
> >> Jean-Marc Valin; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
> >> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio- codecs-for-interop-01
> >>
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> Our understanding is that the reason of the "no consensus" on 
> >> additional recommended codecs was the additional costs for
> browsers.
> >> The proposal is then to make these "MUST" fully conditional to the 
> >> case of no (or very reduced) additional costs, when the codecs are 
> >> already available on the device and when no additional
> license fee is
> >> required
> >>
> >> We could even live with lower level of "requirements" with 
> >> respectively May and Should (instead of Should and shall) but we 
> >> think that this proposal is a way to take into account
> both browser
> >> manufacturers concerns on browsers costs and telcos concerns on 
> >> transcoding costs and some other companies share this view.
> >>
> >> Stéphane
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Message d'origine----- De : rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org 
> >> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jean-Marc
> Valin Envoyé
> >> : mercredi 13 mars 2013 20:24 À : MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc :
> >> rtcweb@ietf.org Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
> >> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> >>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd really like to understand how the chairs coming to the
> conclusion
> > that there was *no consensus* on recommended codecs can result in a 
> > draft that includes 3 MUSTs and 1 SHOULD. This draft
> effectively makes
> > 3 new codecs MTI for a range of devices. I understand that it's an 
> > individual draft and you can write whatever you like in
> there, but it
> > definitely goes against the result of the WG discussion.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jean-Marc
> >
> > On 03/13/2013 09:14 AM, Xavier Marjou wrote:
> >>>> Here is a summary of the
> >>>> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-00
> presentation that I
> >>>> had prepared for yesterday's session:
> >>>>
> >>>> - The co-authors want to underline that non-WebRTC voice
> endpoints
> >>>> usually use one of the following codecs: AMR, AMR-WB or G.722, 
> >>>> which will result in massive transcoding when there will be 
> >>>> communications between WebRTC endpoints and non-WebRTC endpoints.
> >>>>
> >>>> - On one side, transcoding is bad for many reasons
> discussed in the
> >>>> draft (cost issues, intrinsic quality degradation, degraded 
> >>>> interactivity, fallback from HD to G.711...);
> >>>>
> >>>> - On the other side, it is recognized that implementing
> additional
> >>>> codecs in the browsers can generate additional costs.
> >>>>
> >>>> - In order to reach a compromise, we would like to add
> some text in
> >>>> the WG draft draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio providing
> incentives for the
> >>>> browser to use these three codecs: make them mandatory
> to implement
> >>>> when there is no cost impact on the browser (e.g. if
> codec already
> >>>> installed, paid by the device vendor...).
> >>>>
> >>>> Any opinion on that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Xavier
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: I will be ready to present the slides on Thursday if time 
> >>>> permits it.
> >>>>
> >>>> (c.f.
> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-rtcweb-6.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> )
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com 
> >>>> <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Magnus and I discussed this this morning, and we
> encourage you to
> >>>> prepare something.  If the discussion of working group last call 
> >>>> items runs short, we may be able to fit this in at that
> time or at
> >>>> the end of day one if its full agenda his finished.
> This is not a
> >>>> commitment, however, so please try and get discussion on
> the list
> >>>> on the points from the draft you feel need resolution.
> >>>>
> >>>> regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Ted
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Espen Berger (espeberg) 
> >>>> <espeberg@cisco.com <mailto:espeberg@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to request agenda time for:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The document  presents use-cases underlining why WebRTC needs
> >>>> AMR-WB,  AMR
> >>>>> and G.722 as additional relevant voice codecs to satisfactorily 
> >>>>> ensure interoperability with existing systems.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A 10-minute time slot should be sufficient for presentation and
> >>>> discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Espen
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________ 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
> > 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
> >>
> >> ___________________________________________________________
> >> ___________________________________________________________ ___
> >>
> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas
> etre diffuses,
> >> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
> ce message
> >> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le
> detruire ainsi
> >> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant
> susceptibles
> >> d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute
> responsabilite si
> >> ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> >>
> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> >> privileged information that may be protected by law; they
> should not
> >> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
> >> received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
> >> this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France 
> >> Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified,
> >> changed or falsified. Thank you.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ rtcweb
> mailing list
> >> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> >  Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre
> diffuses,
> > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le
> detruire ainsi
> > que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant
> susceptibles
> > d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute
> responsabilite si
> > ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> > privileged information that may be protected by law; they
> should not
> > be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
> > received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this
> > message and its attachments. As emails may be altered,
> France Telecom
> > - Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed
> > or falsified. Thank you.
> >
> > _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
> > rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute 
> non-public information.
> Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in 
> error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this 
> information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or 
> reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not 
> authorized and may be unlawful.
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> >  Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre
> diffuses,
> > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le
> detruire ainsi
> > que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant
> susceptibles
> > d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute
> responsabilite si
> > ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> > privileged information that may be protected by law; they
> should not
> > be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
> > received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this
> > message and its attachments. As emails may be altered,
> France Telecom
> > - Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed
> > or falsified. Thank you.
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQVgzAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9fgYH/jcWfhRrvPM1hJ22YcE7eR0N
> OZzP/RvSrUBiIA6kG+6+Hvn5Lp/tXd+LxUDp5L8B3Toce7TBBAYNJP3M2cr8N8It
> SjVvPHtBNKEqhBLbI4FbAouvymNH4utjAWR+MmF9LRySPXZ9nxLN0A13TeUlpZxt
> Jaxr/n9AWwkKOk6BIo1Xztbk26MObiGVLhCE+CPoHaHe29bKblPcphBXC935ymHS
> SuF2DXiAq0iKwZoVOsLe3RIaGg+bjN7N2MXi3Vphr7cOQK+JpdxURDrvmPh7/L8R
> ht1RJt928yl4fEjnKhSKJLd1J+gPBe6vnkSxUp89as03bLirLwN1G2giD3YzfLM=
> =K56v
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
> d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si 
> ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for 
> messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute 
> non-public information.
> Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in 
> error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this 
> information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or 
> reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not 
> authorized and may be unlawful.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.