Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 18:51 UTC
Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 CAB6F21F9EA2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.767
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.767 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 mFfihaNCBtZb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com (mail-pd0-f182.google.com [209.85.192.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A442021F9E16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r10so5365604pdi.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=y6kDCKjMc1Ox5Wz7/HTnR53hAf6yvjz0csnbE+7+sJI=; b=ZqiZ86yIkdBpLl5WIykMG8diwhEipdxczJ5OcyA1HRc4J+jvxObTXp3fHdif2Ml156 qKHy0w+Ruwzy//VRGSYjIdkxBwez37wS2RNXN7EjZDrJZI6oakcAkj6bfSlVb2q2wQlD JybidOWT/8gL7xxanXIzHmhl7wnmVDFR5Q1LgPNWj03XOXuO08sSqVIGwDhPeDmKLy3L mlExQjS8PuY6It5/RGwLZlEvLQo8Wt3+kIYVuEiTn0iTz1dcVkPi1Kh61EdCkkisVZG3 p6M0yuRvMXU1BMcs8u42VDiEwwmZYuKvbEsmZStJOeDB5KykG3Z+FCXmIjJd5J7QEMWk 3+eA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=y6kDCKjMc1Ox5Wz7/HTnR53hAf6yvjz0csnbE+7+sJI=; b=MuQ4cuaNxT02HbwLvupM9f5sfBaf3m3IzyT+bCAzMCQFd0LYuKSKjc8hv5ofFthgZ+ iGLnkJevaf+KzUlIXvBfjhXgRUA0cpDPtuSmvcl3/FuAEaiI+mHJDjrsEfAftpjNHKWB 4wlRqjz/h91uC5GKxKa1abgEPtT38XPBQwBmltJDD5yplzRI5bnFSsP/yBbjrvMkllIE 082m9VsQVNGmRz/LP9m0hqC7WvqKD5J+EsmiwQuZ8eTTzPLuyRL6KRL/wJwg2NuG3Nji +gqy+W2UFHTyaBx0NOpVB/XNQNqjn+mH9TaaaC4taSGD4knrQI8lQdWEcsBsg6USsCpw yOLQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.69.108 with SMTP id d12mr4051710pbu.187.1371667891915; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AFC6D2DF-3C38-4E20-90A7-A8A10E667471@skype.net>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDk2L3SBPC08WU_5RcL16-Wzv8Mocj3-Qzmxz2E24ERGg@mail.gmail.com> <51C0C1A0.9010107@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUGqSvsosZJhcRR-kCwEX1g_wvPnSZPmmcNwggk+Z9WNCA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWfV=5xBaRqAddqUURThs9J4T4+0HK4Ux07VA51r5oC3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFNGKvWHw-yqeApEdTeuqMNPTDxvdKZ2DuzANmcR2y2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHCkQSLab2UuY_vWP3Gr8uh+++c9mDq5f4sCpuaK5aeLQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C1B907.8060508@hookflash.com> <CAJrXDUG06jvPvhfNwZ6Puzxj7E4XxELG_fU=S7B_c=tnC9eoNQ@mail.gmail.com> <78192824-A516-4376-8D4F-3B052ED47A0C@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUGOYc_Z_qWD7J0ZzVdfwYOacH_p5PjZEg5aP1LUetffMA@mail.gmail.com> <AFC6D2DF-3C38-4E20-90A7-A8A10E667471@skype.net>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:50:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUGt-tbNE8uhvXHRTN3HN5dUd8tgA9MWjYhho_+uk+kAkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174989ee72c43104df865160"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+tHvLaD82oYCEl/+ZHdAOq20vdXJ/SjVCu2yOegxglD/Cew8LL/jkGovRy6MSWF3BVvsRhlnpjqDJ6ee4kbd4GjV8iMvD1GFArunGuv2U6iyo0YHmiAYNL+0np5MYlM+msTfc9MS/Z0rKbeCMIuN6f6624Z/u9q46midNO3tK5L0KMB16k/FZzQLJfEpeoeUj56qm
Cc: "rtcweb_ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:51:37 -0000
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) < matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote: > Fighting the offer/answer machinery in the browser is always possible, > but never easier. > > I want an API that let's me tell the browser what to do, not engage in > an argument with it until it is beaten into submission. I think an API that > let's me tell the browser what to do will then also be much easier to > extend to give me *more* control. > > My recent "NoPlan JS API" give you precisely that, at least for media streams (not for transports). But it's an incremental improvement, which you have categorically rejected. > As an example, putting A and V over the same transport... Could be one > more JS API, instead of a discussion at MMUSIC about how to encode that in > our must-use SDP, followed by JS code I need to write to argue with the > browser when it offers that but I want to turn it off, or vice versa. > Again, my "NoPlan JS API" give you exactly that, at least in theory. No one has implemented it yet :). > > Matthew Kaufman > > (Sent from my iPhone) > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:50 AM, "Peter Thatcher" <pthatcher@google.com> > wrote: > > I asked "is there something that can't be done without sufficient SDP > munging"? You answered "I have something that can be done with sufficient > SDP munging". OK. But do you have something that *can't* be done with > SDP munging? > > If there's nothing that can't be done with SDP munging, then this whole > thread boils down to "give us an API that has the same amount of control as > the current one, but without requiring SDP munging to do advanced things". > And if that's is what is desired, then at least it can be clear and > concise. > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>wrote: > >> I provided a use case that, unless one wants to write a bunch of >> SDP-munging JS state machine cannot be done. >> >> The problem is that such use cases are either 1) ignored or 2) >> dismissed because of course if one writes said JS, they are possible with >> the current API >> >> Matthew Kaufman >> >> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: >> >> I might be wrong, but I tried reading and understanding your whole >> email, and it seems to come down to "I don't want to use SDP or a different >> (JSON) form of SDP". That's a fine thing to request, but why don't you >> just say that? It would save everyone a lot of reading and confusion to be >> more concise. >> >> Or, if you have specific things you'd like to do but can't, what are >> they? I think that would help me, and others, understand more easily. Use >> cases would be helpful. >> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> The trouble is not that we can choose to send whatever we want over the >>> wire. I know we can. If the WebRTC API is left with SDP as it stands, I'll >>> dissect the SDP from the browser, reinterpret and reconstruct on the SDP on >>> the remote side. That is NOT the issue. >>> >>> The summary of what I want/believe: >>> 1) I want as close to raw access to RTP/ICE streams, media, sources, >>> outputs, codecs as viable. Obviously doing the actual transmission, >>> encoding/decoding from JS is not feasible (yet), nor is secure [ICE >>> must occur for mutual agreement to exchange data between peers], but having >>> controls for how these components are wired together is extremely feasible >>> from JS and would allow immensely powerful apps to be produced from JS. >>> >> >> What would you like to do that you can't do via SDP right now? You >> said this isn't just about working through SDP. But I don't see anything >> concrete you can't do right now with sufficient SDP >> parsing/building/munging/hackery. >> >> >> >>> 2) I don't want my primary interface to control media/RTP engines to be >>> via obtaining or providing SDPs to the browser (or any alternative >>> serialized format); especially given that SDP requires a round trip >>> offer/answer to the remote party to affect change (e.g. it's entirely >>> possible to do that stateless and one-sided). The SPD interface API is a >>> monolithic do-everything serialized format to control an engine but >>> extremely badly/poorly/short sighted (regardless if it is SDP or whatever >>> instead), and it's wholly unneeded. >>> >> >> Short summary: "I don't want to use SDP". Right? >> >> 3) I don't want a replacement for SDP with another more "pretty" format >>> like JSON. >>> >> >> Short summary: "I don't want to use SDP or a different syntax for SDP". >> Right? >> >> 4) I want no specified requirement from the browser to have any >>> particular form of media negotiation API requirement what-so-ever >>> (regardless if I can opt to substitute with my own format on the wire or >>> not) >>> >> >> Short summary: "I don't want to use SDP or a different syntax for SDP". >> Right? >> >> >>> 5) Using SDP with offer/answer build into the browser binary is a >>> horribly BAD technical choice (even for SIP folks) and must be stopped, >>> see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07873.html >>> >> >> Short summary: "I don't want to use SDP". Right? >> >> >>> >>> >>> I too want to understand the rational for keeping something as bad as >>> SDP with offer/answer as the primary mechanism for controlling the media >>> components and interaction to those component and more importantly, I'd too >>> would like to open debate to agreeing or not to provide a lower layer API >>> rather than a media negotiation API as a complete substitute alternative to >>> SDP with offer/answer. >>> >>> If we can agree that it's far superior to have a lower level media/RTC >>> component API rather than a media negotiation API, then we can propose what >>> that API could look like (and there are people who have already have >>> starting proposals). I'd throw my hat in the ring to propose such and API >>> if necessary as I've written such engines from scratch before. But I don't >>> want to waste time proposing ore reviewing such an API which will be >>> summarily dismissed because people are so stuck on requiring a media >>> negotiation API built into the browser binary, and specifically SDP with >>> offer/answer in this case. >>> >> >> >> The WG may dislike and reject your proposal, but there's a bit of truth >> to the old mathematically incorrect sports adage "you miss 100% of the >> shots you don't take". >> >> >> Anyone who argues that they need/want that simple SDP media negotiation >>> API must understand that a lower level API would allow a wrapper API to >>> produce the same WebRTC API the have today but be built entirely from >>> JavaScript >>> >> >> That depends on how low-level you go. If you go too low-level, it >> becomes infeasible to do things correctly and performantly in JavaScript. >> >> >>> upon a lower level API. Thus they can have their "just add-milk" >>> baking API. But those of us who need control of the raw ingredients beyond >>> the "just add milk" can still innovate. >>> >>> -Robin >>> >>> >>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> >>> Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> >>> 19 June, 2013 2:49 AM >>> Correct my if I'm wrong, but the API already leaves what goes over >>> the wire completely up to the JS app. So we couldn't re-open a debate of >>> "SDP or not SDP" for the wire format, because there's nothing to debate. >>> We already decided it would be left to the JS to decide. The only thing >>> left to debate is the API. >>> >>> Or am I wrong? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtcweb mailing list >>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> >>> Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >>> 19 June, 2013 2:34 AM >>> Hi, >>> >>> We need to be very clear what we talk about, or some people are always >>> going to be confused :) >>> >>> So, AFAIK, the discussion is about SDP O/A usage in the API, only in the >>> API, and nowhere but the API. >>> >>> Whatever people us on the wire is outside the scope. >>> >>> Right? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Christer >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from *Windows* using *TouchDown* (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Peter Thatcher [pthatcher@google.com] >>> *To:* Martin Thomson [martin.thomson@gmail.com] >>> *CC:* rtcweb@ietf.org [rtcweb@ietf.org] >>> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be >>> re-opened >>> Martin, you're right; that was overly harsh of me. Adam, I apologize. >>> I'll be civil in the future. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtcweb mailing list >>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> >>> Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> >>> 19 June, 2013 1:36 AM >>> Martin, you're right; that was overly harsh of me. Adam, I >>> apologize. I'll be civil in the future. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtcweb mailing list >>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> >>> Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> >>> 18 June, 2013 6:25 PM >>> I agree with Peter, except for this bit: >>> >>> Adam is much harder to confuse than you think, or than he professes. >>> >>> Speaking of burning it all down and starting over. If you want a >>> house-related analogy, that's not quite correct. It's refusing to >>> build an extension because the old house, while legally fit for >>> habitation, is falling down around your ears. Since you only need >>> foundations, it's not that big a job (though I'll grant you that it's >>> bigger than many people realize, even with that smaller scope). >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtcweb mailing list >>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> >>> Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> >>> 18 June, 2013 6:16 PM >>> Adam, I think you're confused. As Ted pointed out, there are two >>> different uses of SDP: 1. as a control surface, 2. as a message format for >>> signalling. SDPNG was trying to replace SDP for #2. While I believe this >>> thread was started entirely focused on #1. So you're talking about >>> different things. >>> >>> So far the only time spent on trying to replace or avoid SDP for #1 >>> has been "comment 22", and to a lesser extent the proposal I just made for >>> adding 2 methods to PeerConnection (createLocalStream and >>> createRemoteStream). I think it's incorrect to conclude that we should >>> never try to improve #1 just because other in the past failed to replace >>> #2. They're very different. >>> >>> I also don't think we should burn down WebRTC and start over, but >>> despite what some seem to think, we don't have to choose between "burn it >>> down" and "never improve it". There are many options other than the two >>> extremes. >>> >>> >>> >>> By the way, a gentle reminder: SDP is not the only way to do #2. I >>> work on a rather large system almost entirely build around Jingle, without >>> a hint of SDP, and it works just fine. Much better than SDP would have, I >>> think. Just because SDPNG didn't work out doesn't mean there will never be >>> any way other to do signalling than SDP. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > >
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Alexandre GOUAILLARD
- [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Erik Lagerway
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Christer Holmberg
- [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Bossiel thioriguel
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Bossiel thioriguel
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Bossiel thioriguel
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Bossiel thioriguel
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Bossiel thioriguel
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Martin Thomson