Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02
stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Thu, 24 June 2010 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005243A69E0 for <xcon@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qR-+tv+vZq5l for <xcon@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57BC3A69EC for <xcon@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwb22 with SMTP id 22so673099wwb.31 for <xcon@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=p7KGIz99/5A0jF1EszHa82B8Vx2fmKz96t+WaaWwppo=; b=GdWXaQvBOwwi7ENNuiUB+ZIIQ2h+Z8R+WXR8kMpLB1fT/a2SbfJut9TWUdwHfdNk6l cgiBv5Tx2RGlnljLag+FEYnXj6R9MR/QFWWpH8O8wbaSTFgkel/q/KuBzu2VgJihX1sL X/HCsEyimPwmGtY/Ml/XtBEhCkBERjADWpdWo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ZdqStsALWCjTgO2eVfOy8KWWHfosekfKZDZmzxtN3Rcjc6xprISTr+YBevYjvZNTQ1 v6gVmggLeLYSkoVSkwejWe+gOjx2QmqPlINdEuwW/efh4xLfwFjWGHJesdVRXGoL7IE7 CGWRzeqLeVOwpKYl/h0nDTmsiBrntM7biFSVE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.88.6 with SMTP id z6mr7492453wee.79.1277393367309; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.11.132 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4c236e60.9d90d80a.1d25.6b10@mx.google.com>
References: <1271757479.26184.8.camel@localhost> <1273653780.2694.11.camel@localhost> <1275916958.17477.9.camel@localhost> <4C0E7332.6080402@gmail.com> <4c0e8de6.df0ce30a.7e58.ffffa795@mx.google.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE213E49A05@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <AANLkTikXJAWyUBtMGShlnKnz2wjmE89x35o3mTAt-s1x@mail.gmail.com> <59F4E573-56DA-4966-BF21-E5E36ED2E389@bbn.com> <4c0f8c0f.9becd80a.55da.0fe2@mx.google.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE213E49BE7@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4c107733.df0ce30a.21ca.15cc@mx.google.com> <20100610130009.1f1fbb03.lorenzo@meetecho.com> <0655E3C8-3B52-4428-B7F7-EA234E5E74F0@bbn.com> <AANLkTimUNoLIVI9cLt4cyz2VFIN7m5auZ0kkn1DyThec@mail.gmail.com> <4c236e60.9d90d80a.1d25.6b10@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:29:27 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinzNkKCmheW9CM85ppzBlhL3tM0eh87iKM-29A_@mail.gmail.com>
From: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6d9746ee59eba0489c8518b"
Cc: Mark Thompson <mark.thompson@tandberg.com>, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, xcon@ietf.org, Tom Kristensen <tom.kristensen@tandberg.com>
Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02
X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon>
List-Post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:29:39 -0000
BFCP is an important component in our application (videoconferencing). The inability to use BFCP when TCP cannot be used is a huge problem for us today. So I would like to see this document progressed. If for some reason XCON doesn't finish it before the WG is closed, I think Mary's suggestion of progressing it under individual AD sponsorship is good. Stephen Botzko 2010/6/24 Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> > Mary, > I think that in the discussion in the past, Gonzalo suggested to do a bis > draft to RFC 4582. I think he mentioned other issues he wanted to update. > Roni Even > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xcon-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Mary Barnes > > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:26 PM > > To: Richard L. Barnes > > Cc: Tom Kristensen; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); xcon@ietf.org; Mark Thompson; > > Alan Johnston > > Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02 > > > > I have reviewed the draft in question and while I agree that this > > could be viewed as a workaround for some more general problems that > > need to be solved, there is a current industry need for the solution > > in this draft. If the general problems described go to DISPATCH > > (which is the appropriate thing to do rather than bringing this > > specific document), the timeframe for getting agreement on the problem > > to be solved and for the solutions to be agreed would be far longer > > IMHO than if this document were progressed. If XCON would prefer to > > close the WG without progressing this document (in this form or as a > > -bis to RFC 4582), my suggestion would be to do as was done for the > > remaining SIP and SIPPING documents and progress this item as an > > individual AD sponsored. > > > > Mary. > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> > > wrote: > > > <hat type="individual"/> > > > > > > I tend to agree with Lorenzo that DISPATCH would be a better place to > > have > > > these discussions, especially given that, as far as I can tell from > > this > > > thread, the problem seems to be a general one of NAT traversal for > > TCP. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:00 AM, Lorenzo Miniero wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> with respect to this topic, I think there are many issues > > implementers > > >> have to face when bringing IETF solutions to the real world. We > > found > > >> ourselves many times in a situation in which some kind of work- > > around > > >> had to be devised in order to let things work properly. Just to cite > > a > > >> couple of examples, with BFCP we had to find a way to let it work in > > a > > >> distributed conferencing scenario (which is far from easy, given the > > >> intrinsic centralized model behind such protocol). In such case, we > > >> decided to encapsulate BFCP messages in the body of XMPP > > >> server-to-server packets (see the XCON-DCON Synchronization Protocol > > in > > >> draft-romano-dcon-xdsp-reqs-06 for the details) and then even > > devised > > >> a BFCP-XMPP gateway for such a purpose. With respect to the NAT > > >> traversal issue, we also implemented an HTTP encapsulation. Moving > > >> further we even conceived a DTMF-based frontend to BFCP ;) and also > > >> almost thought about a BFCP-over-RTP approach. > > >> > > >> That said, I nevertheless agree with Keith on the discussion. Those > > >> problems may be common to other TCP-based protocols as well, and as > > such > > >> a generic solution (generic TCP over UDP, for instance, or anything > > >> else) may be a much better approach than doing a protocol specific > > >> patch. Besides, whatever the solution, it should also take care of > > how > > >> the negotiation of such channels would be affected (as is the > > >> case of RFC4583 for BFCP, which the proposed draft actually does). > > >> > > >> As Keith already suggested, DISPATCH may be a much better place to > > >> discuss this issue: DISPATCH is where we'll also propose the above > > >> mentioned DCON work. > > >> > > >> Lorenzo > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:22:55 +0300 > > >> "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Keith, > > >>> > > >>> I think that the IETF is trying to design protocols that will work > > over > > >>> the > > >>> Internet and also to enable interoperability between independent > > >>> implementations. > > >>> > > >>> In the BFCP case the shipping implementations support TCP as the > > >>> transport > > >>> protocol but they encountered issues when running over the Internet > > due > > >>> to > > >>> devices like SBCs and due to lack of support for TCP media relay or > > >>> ICE-TCP > > >>> [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp]. > > >>> When implementations looked at how to address the issue, the > > >>> interoperability went away since there is no fall back solution for > > this > > >>> real life case. Some did a fall back to HTTP and some did to UDP > > but not > > >>> in > > >>> an interoperable way. > > >>> > > >>> In order to achieve interoperability, this draft is trying to > > extend the > > >>> current BFCP. It is not suggesting to replace TCP but to keep TCP > > as the > > >>> mandatory transport and use UDP as fallback if unable to establish > > TCP > > >>> connection. > > >>> > > >>> As for security, if the topic will be adopted the solution will be > > >>> updated > > >>> to use DTLS as the transport for BFCP. > > >>> > > >>> I hope that people will read the draft and look at the objectives > > and the > > >>> proposed solution. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> BTW: This is a problem for client to client media connections over > > TCP > > >>> and > > >>> my understanding is that RTSP offers to use both TCP and UDP since > > both > > >>> are > > >>> specified. Since BFCP is not a payload but is running in parallel > > to the > > >>> RTP > > >>> payload (for the point to point calls or MCU based multipoint) it > > needs > > >>> similar transport options. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks > > >>> Roni Even > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com] > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:54 AM > > >>>> To: Roni Even; 'Richard L. Barnes'; 'Tom Kristensen' > > >>>> Cc: 'Mark Thompson'; 'Alan Johnston'; 'Tom Kristensen'; > > xcon@ietf.org > > >>>> Subject: RE: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02 > > >>>> > > >>>> What you are essentially saying is that all protocols in the > > future > > >>>> that need reliable transport, as BFCP does, have to design in > > their own > > >>>> reliable transport element so they can use UDP. This is not a BFCP > > >>>> specific issue. > > >>>> > > >>>> I find that an unacceptable direction for IETF to be heading in. > > >>>> > > >>>> I would also note that you are also asking for adoption of a > > document > > >>>> that cannot in its current form meet the security requirements of > > the > > >>>> original RFC. > > >>>> > > >>>> regards > > >>>> > > >>>> Keith > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>> From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] > > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:40 PM > > >>>>> To: 'Richard L. Barnes'; 'Tom Kristensen' > > >>>>> Cc: 'Mark Thompson'; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); 'Alan Johnston'; > > >>>>> 'Tom Kristensen'; xcon@ietf.org > > >>>>> Subject: RE: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp- > > 02 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Richard, > > >>>>> The BFCP I used as a presentation token for video > > >>>>> conferencing. What the implementers found out that TCP does > > >>>>> not work in real networks due to Session border controllers > > >>>>> not supporting TCP as used in BFCP. > > >>>>> This is why in products they try to establish TCP connection > > >>>>> and if fails tries UDP. > > >>>>> The video conferencing vendors participating in the IMTC sip > > >>>>> parity activity group defined an interoperability profile > > >>>>> that references this option Roni Even > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>> From: xcon-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces@ietf.org] > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Behalf > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Of Richard L. Barnes > > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:34 PM > > >>>>>> To: Tom Kristensen > > >>>>>> Cc: Mark Thompson; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Alan Johnston; Tom > > >>>>>> Kristensen; xcon@ietf.org > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp- > > 02 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Tom and others who are interested in this draft: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> For those who are relatively new here: Could you summarize why > > you > > >>>>>> think this draft is needed? What requirement does it meet > > >>>>> > > >>>>> that BFCP > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> doesn't right now? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>> --Richard > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Tom Kristensen wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The UDP/BFCP draft has been presented and discussed in > > >>>>> > > >>>>> two or three > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> IETF XCON sessions. No objection to the work being > > >>>>> > > >>>>> carried on, just > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> that adoption as WG item was postponed until the draft was more > > >>>>>>> complete. (This has been delayed of various reasons, but > > >>>>> > > >>>>> the authors > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> believe the -02 version in question here should be ready for > > >>>>>>> adoption). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The "current status of consensus" might be valid for some, but > > >>>>>>> participants in the XCON sessions and the minutes of meeting > > show > > >>>>>>> progress away from that initial consensus. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I believe Ott's concerns are either dealt with or at > > >>>>> > > >>>>> least mentioned > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> in the draft. Arrest me if I'm wrong. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- Tom > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 9 June 2010 13:20, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > > >>>>>>> <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> We made an explicit decision in the original draft that > > >>>>> > > >>>>> UDP was not > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> required, not that we would do it later. That as far as I am > > >>>>>>>> concerned represents the current status of consensus. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> This was done on the basis that we had all seen how UDP > > >>>>> > > >>>>> support had > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> complicated SIP, and we did not want to repeat that issue. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> So this is not continuing the work. The status is an > > >>>>> > > >>>>> author draft > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> which goes against a WG consensus position. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I believe Georg Ott also expressed some concerns which I did > > not > > >>>>>>>> see answered on list at all. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> regards > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Keith > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>> From: xcon-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces@ietf.org] On > > >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Roni Even > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:35 PM > > >>>>>>>>> To: 'Alan Johnston'; 'Tom Kristensen' > > >>>>>>>>> Cc: 'Mark Thompson'; xcon@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Alan, > > >>>>>>>>> I support this work and think it is urgent to finish it. > > >>>>>>>>> I think that updating BFCP with UDP support is very > > >>>>> > > >>>>> important. I > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> would like to mention that BFCP is being used in video > > >>>>>>>>> conferencing application and since the implementers > > encountered > > >>>>>>>>> problems with TCP they use a fall back to UDP. > > >>>>>>>>> We discussed this work in previous IETF meeting and > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Gonzalo as far > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> as I remember suggested to add it to a BFCP bis draft. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>>> Roni Even > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>>> From: xcon-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces@ietf.org] > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Behalf > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Of Alan Johnston > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:44 PM > > >>>>>>>>>> To: Tom Kristensen > > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Thompson; xcon@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? > > >>>>>>>>>> draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02 > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Apologies for the delay in replying. As you know, the > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> working group > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> is in the process of completing its final milestones. > > >>>>>>>>>> Publication requests will be issued in the next few > > >>>>> > > >>>>> days for the > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> data > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> model, CCMP, > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> and the Examples drafts. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Taking on any new milestones for the working group > > >>>>> > > >>>>> would require: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 1. Strong support and interest from working group > > >>>>> > > >>>>> participants 2. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Approval of our ADs. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen evidence of either of these at this stage. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> A possible option is to take this work to DISPATCH, get an > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> indication > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> of interests, and get feedback on the best way to move > > >>>>> > > >>>>> this work > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> forward. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - Alan - > > >>>>>>>>>> co-chair XCON > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/10 8:22 AM, Tom Kristensen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The draft draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02 was submitted > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> early in > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> March. No comments received since. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We'd like guidance on the next steps. First we ask for > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> adoption as > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> WG item. Next step would include the merging process with > > bis > > >>>>>>>>>>> versions > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> RFC 4582 and RFC 4583. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We'd like to point out that interested parties for this > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> work indeed > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> exist. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> (For the record: Questions was sent to XCON chairs in > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> April and May. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> See > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> below. No response given. Therefore, this request on > > >>>>> > > >>>>> the list.) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 10:43 +0200, Tom Kristensen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chairs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or decision on this matter? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 11:58 +0200, Tom Kristensen wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XCON chairs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We submitted draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> early in March > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> well in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> advance of IETF-77. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp- > > >>>> > > >>>> udp > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No comments received. Neither on XCON WG list, nor > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> directly to the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> authors. Therefore, we ask for adoption of this draft > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> as an XCON > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WG item. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>> XCON mailing list > > >>>>>>>>>> XCON@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>> XCON mailing list > > >>>>>>>>> XCON@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>> XCON mailing list > > >>>>>>>> XCON@ietf.org > > >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> # TANDBERG R&D > > >>>>>>> ## http://www.tandberg.com > > >>>>>>> ### http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>> XCON mailing list > > >>>>>>> XCON@ietf.org > > >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>> XCON mailing list > > >>>>>> XCON@ietf.org > > >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > >>>>> > > >>>>> = > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> XCON mailing list > > >>> XCON@ietf.org > > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Lorenzo Miniero > > >> Meetecho s.r.l. > > >> http://www.meetecho.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > XCON mailing list > > > XCON@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > XCON mailing list > > XCON@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > _______________________________________________ > XCON mailing list > XCON@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon >
- [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-ud… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Alan Johnston
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Roni Even
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Patrick Luthi
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Alfred E. Heggestad
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Roni Even
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Roni Even
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Roni Even
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Roni Even
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Allyn Romanow (allyn)
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Roni Even
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Patrick Luthi
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Mary Barnes
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Roni Even
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… stephen botzko
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Allyn Romanow (allyn)
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Patrick Luthi
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Alex Eleftheriadis
- Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfc… Tom Kristensen