Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 18:00 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 8FDDB1A8763 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:00:04 -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 2EZSabrguQuD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p02.blackberry.com (smtp-p02.blackberry.com [208.65.78.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15731A00BD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xct102cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.202]) by mhs215cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 10 Dec 2014 12:59:48 -0500
Received: from XCT111CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.211) by XCT102CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:59:48 -0500
Received: from XMB111CNC.rim.net ([fe80::fcd6:cc6c:9e0b:25bc]) by XCT111CNC.rim.net ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:59:47 -0500
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
Thread-Index: AQHQFInbVBWK6YoLoEyBNpmZ4G+pQ5yJZckA//+unHA=
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:59:47 +0000
Message-ID: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35E6EF@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <CAPF_GTaJwaS9+9uSSGTC1+RqKb=uF8UQxsP4u5jPJiRi=88-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvGH6jEp072GxfQwZ=O_QaxZpTrq3bgd2A-gOMj2PL9ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPw+JoXmHM_nH=ZF6zWfMpw_V1MLZU=hD6kac8qv_Z5eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dsv9W9_x+RroLdsAKyhNAFGGdCTm9P3BMf1_L0XzB8UBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPEp-ujLfoYp+C8_cvyQ9EdEAkn_o6aFpuXEdN_N18YZw@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35E2BB@XMB111CNC.rim.net>, <54885FA3.3060602@gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D58C9A8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D58C9A8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.249]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35E6EFXMB111CNCrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Qpacu_DGtqtlKo49OiOcCqMbPmk
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: 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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:00:04 -0000
The main problem is with what the terminology covers and its inconsistent usage. The WebRTC gateway in https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways-01.txt is defined as a WebRTC-compatible endpoint with some requirements being applied to it. I am not sure how the last sentence in the WebRTC-compatible endpoint definition “It is not constrained by this specification…” applies to the gateway. If a mobile app is centered around text or text and audio, it should not be relegated in the WebRTC-compatible endpoint category and should be able to benefit from the WebRTC non browser/endpoint terminology . If a WebRTC-compatible endpoint supports everything but a subset of functions (e.g. does not support bundle) there could be requirements applied to it; in IETF or in other standardization groups that are referring to the IETF terminology. I don’t think it is fine to have in a specification an unclear category in which both ‘meaningful’ entities (gateway, current WebRTC librairies, the above examples or Ron’s coffee maker) and possibly some sub-standard “things” belong. One way would be to defined the minimum requirements for a WebRTC-compatible endpoint to “successfully communicate with a WebRTC endpoint”. In addition, the WebRTC gateway could be removed from the WebRTC-compatible endpoint category. There might be enough differences to justify two entities. Changing the naming of “WebRTC-compatible” to a less confusing term is a cosmetic change (but might be a good thing). Gaëlle From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:20 PM To: Sergio Garcia Murillo; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confirming sense of the room: mti codec) Hi, Note that Adam didn't define the terminology - he used the terminology defined in the rtcweb-overview document. So, if someone has issues with the terminology, I think those issues should be addressed against that document. Regards, Christer Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Sergio Garcia Murillo<mailto:sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Sent: 10/12/2014 16:59 To: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> Subject: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confirming sense of the room: mti codec) Hi Gaelle It is vague on purpose. What WebRTC does in regards of "WebRTC compatible endpoints" is just describing a reality, there will be some entities that do not comply with the WebRTC specs, but still are able to speak with WebRTC devices/browsers/endpoints/gateways because they implement a set of specs that WebRTC is built upon. So you can either ignore them, or assume that they are in the wild outside and describe how they look like and how they could interact with WebRTC. And, by definition, you can't put any kind of requirement to entities that do comply with the spec. Best regards Sergio On 10/12/2014 15:47, Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote: +1 The vagueness of the WebRTC-compatible endpoint definition and the feature set it covers is worrisome. It is introducing sub-standards within a specification. The various discussions show that we have been essentially looking at it either as containing all features but one codec, or the feature set needed for a gateway. That category could covers something that does only does 15% of WebRTC. It might “successfully communicate with a WebRTC endpoint” but what does it means? How painful will that be to deal with such endpoint, assuming it somewhat connects to your own product? It might be more appropriate to relax requirements for both the WebRTC gateway and a new entity than having such a vague category. Gaëlle From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:18 AM To: Bernard Aboba Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com<mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote: My bad. New question: How can an endpoint that implements video but none of the MTI codecs be construed as "WebRTC Compatible"? Well, this seems like a generic complaint about the term "compatible", since such endpoints are explicitly not required to meet any requirements: A WebRTC-compatible endpoint is an endpoint that is able to successfully communicate with a WebRTC endpoint, but may fail to meet some requirements of a WebRTC endpoint. This may limit where in the network such an endpoint can be attached, or may limit the security guarantees that it offers to others. It is not constrained by this specification; when it is mentioned at all, it is to note the implications on WebRTC-compatible endpoints of the requirements placed on WebRTC endpoints. So, perhaps we need a new term, but this doesn't seem like an issue limited to video codecs -Ekr On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote: On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com<mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote: Allowing an endpoint that implements video to call itself "WebRTC compliant" without implementing either of the MTI codecs is so wrong-headed that I am at a loss for words. I believe you have misread the proposal. The term "WebRTC compliant" never appears anywhere in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03. Indeed, the word "compliant" does not appear. Rather, endpoints which implement neither codec qualify as "WebRTC Compatible". -Ekr On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com<mailto:erik@hookflash.com>> wrote: Thanks Sean, We can not support this draft at this time. As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs, but we can not stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI on our developer community. According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every app that is built using our tools. Codec selection should be their choice and not be forced upon them. This seems to be a rather unreasonable expectation. Erik Lagerway<http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/> | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog<http://webrtc.is/> On Fri, 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] 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