Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Justin Uberti
2023-11-11
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/n_Ysy6iFA-EHW_miIfjEwQq_ivM/
3383081
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Murray S. Kucherawy
2023-11-08
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/X0MVq57eiZeUptrvhVYMCuG58no/
3380915
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Lynne Bartholomew
2023-10-30
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/o4vqdhns6ghr7VHHqSuheSnXA6o/
3376536
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Cullen Jennings
2023-10-29
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/1vsJ-uvQA_EQWmYOjV60wGrzXLI/
3375548
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Justin Uberti
2023-10-28
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/fEAnnOSW9MW7y1RtJOAgbEUGuwo/
3375416
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Murray S. Kucherawy
2023-10-28
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/y5lYrs3q_1UrVrQseKF8ol52x90/
3375305
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Lynne Bartholomew
2023-10-27
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/zQLVJKcB4wC8sZ8xH40qIRbr968/
3375136
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Justin Uberti
2023-10-17
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/NY-PlGPdULb5OeyVWFHu9j4p5Jg/
3369262
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
Sean Turner
2023-10-17
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/3fMT_ue6dKqzg9Pv47ZV0fDQ8gU/
3369259
2089525
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review
rfc-editor
2023-10-10
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/Ei9HWNfzBBuU5mO1Phl3Z07UX7Y/
3366440
2089525
[AVTCORE] Fwd: Is support for two-byte RTP header extensions mandatory?[AVTCORE] Fwd: Is support for two-byte RTP header extensions mandatory?
Bernard Aboba
2023-09-22
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/tm8UUW1exE5SOxg-iNZMDY2Y4lc/
3358871
2086079
[rtcweb] Is support for two-byte RTP header extensions mandatory?[rtcweb] Is support for two-byte RTP header extensions mandatory?
Philipp Hancke
2023-09-22
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/QRnWNuWzGuLRovWdHkodNP6VOgg/
3358804
2086042
[rtcweb] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: (with COMMENT)[rtcweb] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: (with COMMENT)
Lars Eggert via Datatracker
2022-09-30
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/diJ1ZSPviUwxVWqHnWOwkAtUPU8/
3228855
2031574
Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Lorenzo Miniero
2022-04-04
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/G5gJ_Wu7J7SYPr96CzqGVVcgUUM/
3167009
2004575
Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Maxim Sharabayko
2022-04-04
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/3chkpNByOS_1__AwvLfdwUuLWVA/
3166993
2004575
Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Lorenzo Miniero
2022-03-29
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/vDCNirDaFB_0k_ZQjDPhepuVfE8/
3164802
2004575
Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Maxim Sharabayko
2022-03-28
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/oXHrLGJ74bIW_QFxL0E_kYVjUr8/
3164418
2004575
Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Simon Pietro Romano
2022-03-23
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/kcxVnYJR_rm6C92P4Rl3wfMexbQ/
3162327
2004575
Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Maxim Sharabayko
2022-03-23
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/J6aHr2E9ZHmcyhwyL3rszAgcxM4/
3162302
2004575
Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?Re: [Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Justin Uberti
2022-03-23
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/KpKANpdrNHh8_1VrRJ3WfnSVr7g/
3162100
2004575
[Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?[Moq] How complicated is WebRTC?
Cullen Jennings
2022-03-22
moq
None
/arch/msg/moq/S7ww0KiL0fRFN04h2AQQ6yjJjfw/
3162012
2004575
[GGIE] SMPTE 2110 dependencies on IETF RFCs[GGIE] SMPTE 2110 dependencies on IETF RFCs
Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
2019-07-09
ggie
None
/arch/msg/ggie/VOZjEFVv5vrdvZ1aXVCve22bPBg/
2752093
1848878
Re: [AVTCORE] Draft agenda for AVTCore meeting in SingaporeRe: [AVTCORE] Draft agenda for AVTCore meeting in Singapore
Jonathan Lennox
2017-11-05
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/K6CUdQdKRr1iVgU4VRYCuxjl-zU/
2504556
1754715
Re: [AVTCORE] Draft agenda for AVTCore meeting in SingaporeRe: [AVTCORE] Draft agenda for AVTCore meeting in Singapore
Roni Even
2017-11-05
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/4WutqDZ6lEBzrBYpeNbMx6ZZCjQ/
2504534
1754715
[rfc-dist] RFC 8285 on A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions[rfc-dist] RFC 8285 on A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
rfc-editor
2017-10-26
rfc-dist
None
/arch/msg/rfc-dist/WozTXSCiY9QHGy2vM3-plw3oynY/
2499623
1752659
RFC 8285 on A General Mechanism for RTP Header ExtensionsRFC 8285 on A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
rfc-editor
2017-10-26
ietf-announce
None
/arch/msg/ietf-announce/8GGzIHfdXWSbOYB0E1_V4VIMF_0/
2499624
1752660
[AVTCORE] RFC 8285 on A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions[AVTCORE] RFC 8285 on A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
rfc-editor
2017-10-26
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/CY_MMBF-zCXPeY_pHQ_9ptr6lgU/
2499625
1752661
Re: [rtcweb] Does RID require the same ext id for all the m= sections?Re: [rtcweb] Does RID require the same ext id for all the m= sections?
Iñaki Baz Castillo
2017-09-26
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/exXg_a_FZe7EVBe3Ub2qz95s3Ws/
2464044
1733011
Re: [rtcweb] Does RID require the same ext id for all the m= sections?Re: [rtcweb] Does RID require the same ext id for all the m= sections?
Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
2017-09-11
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/xBpKpxKQllnYZRDU32WtrFGG-zg/
2444255
1733011
Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?
Roni Even
2017-08-09
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/la98XagyJXFBDausXC2VlvNrwX4/
2431668
1720826
Re: [AVTCORE] [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?Re: [AVTCORE] [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?
Roni Even
2017-08-09
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/SKNWtgLs1sbIp5A0gIY2eaDqFO8/
2431669
1721127
Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?
Christer Holmberg
2017-08-09
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/pEAVh7KKiZ4OSfvE9cyNKzwkVn0/
2431655
1720826
Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?
Roni Even
2017-08-09
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/T3N8Mzlt5d6nSHtXCiFJW3NLypk/
2431577
1720826
Protocol Action: 'A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-14.txt)Protocol Action: 'A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-14.txt)
The IESG
2017-08-07
ietf-announce
None
/arch/msg/ietf-announce/5YPInJIDrAq_a9YUBdq2Un65Cv0/
2431116
1720878
[AVTCORE] Protocol Action: 'A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-14.txt)[AVTCORE] Protocol Action: 'A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-14.txt)
The IESG
2017-08-07
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/xKZP0e2Pd-7vbLaGJEqfVfMpy5E/
2431117
1720879
Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-13.txtRe: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-13.txt
Ben Campbell
2017-08-07
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/NkGGXqeZm7afgQtw5PPp2t3UzcM/
2431070
1718353
Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?
Christer Holmberg
2017-08-07
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/F0HhmYtZ91TcZ-wgf7gQzHAPJx0/
2430907
1720826
[rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?[rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?
Iñaki Baz Castillo
2017-08-07
rtcweb
None
/arch/msg/rtcweb/rtatigxbppCOU56MiXs53DCneM4/
2430905
1720826
Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-13.txtRe: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-13.txt
Roni Even
2017-08-07
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/kZtg4236CqE4hfp1-dcNLsPTc_g/
2430802
1718353
[AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-14.txt[AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-14.txt
internet-drafts
2017-08-02
avt
None
/arch/msg/avt/V3HKgZHD3w7bhBcjSU8S18pF3Kc/
2429028
1720122