Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 20:00 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 E7B7D1ACDFF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:00:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 sIXOFj6ujqLn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34C741A8766 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r20so13478203wiv.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:00:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=kDcy7UNNNwnuFUtyl1O7TMD0dTnZZLjL1UeZUApWnGE=; b=RZFUPu76qMKDf8Cac52VZIljy7z43RZyggYA97IJJcwfbzUgE9+J9ExrMs0IEYclCp s0ZpFpOXYsjYkl5NiZiTpnWNixvjpkyhMQrpiEq4P3V7jZuhL9SqPoMTuUGVgJmMJ9w6 hnGBFIF505Mku/HRtamQIwuq8HzybQuqTaJ6CZhow3SEY6pglSIlvAtuhCihG3YkHb2w mcUiWM6PP8JJTTdMnq5AUQXRUoxRxwVBW+4a+/47ZAguFetVtQ4UF6gx3aWG1rcse9dC 0fPPbUVpp2v5gCDNhbd5LOGo+4EHf7MJa/m5YFyREZ2ZdSHVXmq/5i2e+12fyIv4eqC1 x4lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnIsnh16PLaKwHamqpXJMHOPBr6iUNAQcMVVQtUg+3yido42iufS7z0sdGEkFCnzkHQMs1P
X-Received: by 10.194.203.104 with SMTP id kp8mr32839217wjc.103.1418760002869; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:00:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.130.34 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:59:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363549@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOykRm1RCupB6905AOikXrcrmeSjE45Yqf1mHL3aed2Zg@mail.gmail.com> <20141216162534.GV47023@verdi> <CABcZeBNDiDyYtv_0vZyO_mGuFi-dn4s0CXEo1agMmRSvsLNR8w@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF3634AA@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <CABcZeBPQMY=X1NFY=T04H7EGbapUMoEdN5k0WAmyzX2ijsm8pg@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363549@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:59:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMnBCtBZqnbfcTfAR519UoffuVKKPPLc-35XKmU5WSFSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bae493efe2541050a5acd2d"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/XE-daBfFeavrmrAtzUVDWeiR4K0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:00:09 -0000
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher < gmartincocher@blackberry.com> wrote: > > I am not sure on what you are basing your opinion. > As I said, the purpose of an MTI is to provide basic interop. Waiting for an RF technically superior codec might not be pragmatic and > can indeed prevent any evolution of WebRTC codec for a long time. > > Deprecating MTI can be done in steps (e.g. become SHOULD, then MAY) > > > > If this MTI text prevents codec evolution, this is a serious issue. > It doesn't prevent codec evolution. That's why we have negotiation. Browsers are free to implement non-MTI codecs and I would anticipate that they will do so. -Ekr Gaëlle > > > > > > *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:38 PM > *To:* Gaelle Martin-Cocher > *Cc:* John Leslie; rtcweb@ietf.org > > *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher < > gmartincocher@blackberry.com> wrote: > > I have little confidence that the choice between H265 and VP9 will be > easier than it is today between VP8 and H264. > > Are we going to multiply similarly performing codecs going forward (in > the spec or in practice) or be stuck with mandatory low performing codecs > because we cannot make better decision? > > > > It's important to remember that the requirement for an MTI codec > > is to guarantee basic interoperability. I would not imagine that we > > would define a new required codec unless it was not just technically > > superior but also definitively RF in the sense contemplated by Adam's > > text. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > Time frame for H265 / VP9 is up to two years from now > > And possibly the timeframe for H.266/Dalaa is four years from now > > > > This is one more drawback of the proposed text for MTI, not only it > multiplies encoders and decoders to be supported but can prevent the > evolution of webrtc toward more advances codecs. (assuming we will not > require 4 or 6 encoders and 4 or 6 decoders to be supported by every single > endpoints. Two MTI seems largely enough, no?). > > > > Gaëlle > > > > *From:* rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Eric > Rescorla > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:53 AM > *To:* John Leslie > *Cc:* rtcweb@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:25 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote: > > Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:21 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote: > > > Needless to say, having WG consensus on the substance and letting the > > editor wordsmith the text is totally normal IETF process. > > In some cases, yes. IMHO, this is not one of them. YMMV... > > > > Indeed it does, since I have *never* heard of such a case where > > the editor had no discretion to change the text in purely editorial > > ways (subject to WG consensus of course). Feel free to cite one > > if you have one. > > > > > > > I haven't heard anyone who was at HNL and in favor of the text on the > > slides object that Adam's text in the draft doesn't reflect those > > slides. > > Probably you haven't... > > > > To the best of my knowledge it hasn't happened. Can you cite anyone > > who has so objected. > > > > > > > > Besides, Eric isn't the WGC calling consensus. > > > > No, the chairs did here: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html > ] > ] From: Sean Turner <turners at ieca.com> > ] 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. > > Actually, as I read this more carefully, that isn't a consensus call. > Sean goes on to dismiss the objections he heard in the room: > > > > He's addressing them. What exactly is the problem with this? > > > > > ] 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. > > Sean is specifically saying the "trigger" should be discussed > on-list. > > > > I don't read this this way at all, Rather he's saying that in the future we > > can update the RFC. But yes, we can discuss the trigger on-list. Do you > > have some substantive objection that wasn't raised in HNL and/or > > hasn't been discussed to death here? > > > > > > ] 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. > > This _is_ calling for consensus. > > But Sean omitted saying _what_ text; and agreed that the exact text > may not have been clear to those in the room. > > > > Huh? The "proposed text" that was discussed in HNL is on the slide and > > that's what's being referred to here. Adam edited text which is > substantially > > the same into the draft. > > > > > > > > ] If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do > ] by December 19th. > > (And folks have been doing so.) > > I have asked on-list for the exact text before raising my issues, > since my issues relate to the text, not the choosing to have two MTIs. > > > > As I pointed out in my original message, that text is in Adam's draft. > > > > Again, it's totally procedurally regular to have rough consensus on text in > > the WG meeting and on the list and then have the editor edit in > substantively > > the same text to the draft. If you think there is some respect in which > those > > two blocks of text are not in fact the same, please point to it. Otherwise, > > this is just dilatory. > > > > > > > And this message clearly points to the slides above. > > I don't find it helpful to attack the people who raise issues. YMMV. > > > > But what EKR thinks really doesn't matter. He is not a WGC. > > > > Ironic that you would complain about "attack"s in a thread where you > > started out by attacking Adam Roach and here say "what EKR thinks > > really doesn't matter" > > > > -Ekr > >
- [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