From albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Mar 7 06:59:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629F921F84EB; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 06:59:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.17 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 Lrqs3Mab1nMk; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 06:59:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4D221F8564; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 06:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q27EuvK9000658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:59:11 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.50]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:58:59 +0100 From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" , "Miguel A. Garcia" , Bert Greevenbosch Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:58:58 +0100 Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP Thread-Index: Acz8UPhLdtyhqIOBRNq1QBXclwrtWAAHMlYwAADkzhA= Message-ID: <5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC9621626AD30B@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4F3A1055.10804@ericsson.com> <46A1DF3F04371240B504290A071B4DB623286CB6@szxeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <4F463159.5040903@ericsson.com> <4F4677D3.2090406@ericsson.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C3F4BAA07@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <46A1DF3F04371240B504290A071B4DB624510133@szxeml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4F573ED3.2030409@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Cc: "megaco@ietf.org" , "mmusic@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Megaco] [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP X-BeenThere: megaco@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Media Gateway Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:59:50 -0000 > If I am a Megaco / H.248 user of SDP I suspect therefore I come up with a= different viewpoint of what is core and what is not. Good point. The Megaco/H.248 hitchhiker's guide to SDP should include at least, e.g.: 1) ITU-T H.248.1 Version 3 Amendment 2: "Summary - H.248 usage of SDP" 2) ITU-T H.248.15: "SDP H.248 package attribute" 3) ITU-T H.248.39: "H.248 SDP parameter identification and wildcarding" 4) ITU-T H.248.49: "Session description protocol RFC and capabilities packa= ges" 5) ITU-T H.248.80: "Usage of the revised SDP offer / answer model with H.24= 8" (Draft) 6) ETSI 183 046: "SDP Interworking between Call/Session Control Protocols (= SIP/SDP, RTSP/SDP; etc.) and the Gateway Control Protocol (H.248/SDP)" Such an "Megaco/H.248 hitchhiker's guide to SDP" should be incorporated in = an "Hitchhiker's guide to SDP" in my opinion. Regards Albrecht -----Original Message----- From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= DRAGE, Keith (Keith) Sent: Mittwoch, 7. M=E4rz 2012 15:25 To: Miguel A. Garcia; Bert Greevenbosch Cc: mmusic@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP I notice RFC 3264 is mentioned as one of the core specifications. This only becomes core when SDP is used in the context of SIP. If I am a Megaco / H.248 user of SDP I suspect therefore I come up with a d= ifferent viewpoint of what is core and what is not. We may need to address these different viewpoints, unless you want to make = a guide that is entirely focused on SIP usage. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Miguel A. Garcia > Sent: 07 March 2012 10:56 > To: Bert Greevenbosch > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP >=20 > Bert, >=20 > Here is another document with the same purpose. You can use it for > inspiration. This is a bit more complex document, because it has to deal > with several different protocols, rather than only one. >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds >=20 > The other document that you need to consult is the IANA SDP Parameters > registry at: >=20 > http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xml >=20 > This contains a list of all the SDP extensions, and they all should be > listed in the hitchhiker's guide. >=20 > /Miguel >=20 > On 07/03/2012 3:54, Bert Greevenbosch wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Monday, I have uploaded a v00 draft for "Hitchhiker's Guide to SDP". > It is based on the "Hitchhiker's Guide to SIP" (RFC 5411). I have copied > most initial text from there, and in addition included an initial list of > RFCs / drafts that seem relevant. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-greevenbosch-hitchhikersguide- > sdp/ > > > > If the group is happy with this approach, I will be happy to maintain a= n > editor's role, and write more text. Obviously other people's input will b= e > highly appreciated, and indeed is needed. > > > > I look forward to your comments. > > > > Best regards, > > Bert > > > > P.S. Unfortunately, I forgot to include "mmusic" in the name of the > draft. How to deal with this? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > Of Christer Holmberg > > Sent: 27 February 2012 04:53 > > To: Gonzalo Camarillo; Mary Barnes > > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP > > > > > > Hi, > > > > As a directorate member, I am willing to co-author such draft, should a > decision to write one be taken. > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > Of Gonzalo Camarillo > > Sent: 23. helmikuuta 2012 19:31 > > To: Mary Barnes > > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP > > > > I agree. > > > > Gonzalo > > > > On 23/02/2012 7:06 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > >> I would think that in order for the document to have integrity that at > >> least one of the directorate members should at least be a co-author. > >> Otherwise, I see a lot more stuff falling through the cracks and > >> needing to be resolved during WGLC and later, which usually isn't a > >> good thing. The SIP Hitchhiker's guide provides a good example in > >> that the author was also a primary contributor to RFC3261, etc. > >> > >> Mary. > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo > >> >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mary, > >> > >> yes, the members of the SDP directorate would need to review such > a > >> guide. However, the fact that they agreed to be members of the > >> directorate does not mean they will necessarily have cycles to > >> significantly contribute to the creation of the guide. We need to > make > >> sure we have enough energy around this effort in order to start > it. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Gonzalo > >> > >> On 15/02/2012 7:14 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > >> > I think this is a good idea. I would think the experts that > can > >> > contribute (and should review) can be found in the new SDP > >> > directorate: > >> > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/sdp.html > >> > BTW, it would be nice to have a link to this page on the MMUSI= C > WG > >> wiki: > >> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/trac/wiki > >> > > >> > As far as whether to publish, I think it would be a good idea > to > >> > complete publication as IMHO that improves the integrity of th= e > >> > information - i.e., more eyes review a published RFC than a > draft. > >> > It could later be updated to reflect more recent RFCs OR a > "More of > >> > Hitchhikers Guide" could be published. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Mary. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Bert Greevenbosch > >> > >> > wrote: > >> >> Hi Miguel, Andrew, all, > >> >> > >> >> Sounds like a good idea. I would be happy to volunteer to pla= y > a > >> central role in it (i.e. be the editor, create the initial draft, > >> ...), but I would need support from other experts too. > >> >> > >> >> As for practicalities, I see that the "Hitchhiker's Guide to > SIP" > >> has become an RFC (5411). That means that it has been frozen, and > to > >> add new info new individual or WG drafts are needed. > >> >> > >> >> Would this be the same approach for SDP? Currently, there are > >> already quite some new drafts that extend SDP. How will future > >> extensions be handled? Maybe it would be good to make it a > permanent > >> WG draft, which is updated every now and then. > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> Bert > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org > >> [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] > On > >> Behalf Of Miguel A. Garcia > >> >> Sent: 14 February 2012 15:42 > >> >> To: Andrew Allen > >> >> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org > >> >> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we need to update in time 4566bis? > >> >> > >> >> Sounds good to me too. If someone wants to start such draft..= . > >> >> > >> >> /Miguel > >> >> > >> >> On 13/02/2012 23:15, Andrew Allen wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> What about considering a hitchhikers guide to SDP similar to > >> what was done for SIP? > >> >>> > >> >>> One umbrella document that points the reader to all the SDP > >> capabilities available that they might want to take advantage of. > >> >>> > >> >>> Just a suggestion. > >> >>> > >> >>> Andrew > >> >>> > >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >>> From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com > >> ] > >> >>> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 06:23 AM > >> >>> To: mmusic> > >> >>> Subject: [MMUSIC] Do we need to update in time 4566bis? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi all, > >> >>> > >> >>> You know we are revising RFC 4566. So far, the effort has > been > >> in bug fixing. > >> >>> > >> >>> The first SDP version was published as RFC 2327 in 1998 > (i.e., > >> 14 years > >> >>> ago), and was then revised as RFC 4566 in 2006. > >> >>> > >> >>> Lots of things have happened since then. We have SDP offer > answer, > >> >>> Grouping, QoS, ATM, Bandwidth modifiers, TCP media, SDES, > comeida, > >> >>> labels, BFCP, FEC, ICE, CapNeg, and many other that are in > the pipe. > >> >>> > >> >>> From the point of view of a reader who takes 4566 (or its > current > >> >>> 4566bis incarnation), I think it will be difficult for her o= r > him to > >> >>> understand a protocol that ignores those other extensions. > For > >> example, I > >> >>> recently post another e-mail where there is an apparent > >> contradiction > >> >>> between 4566 and ICE (see > >> >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail- > archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09089.html ). > >> >>> > >> >>> So, I was wondering if time has come to make not a bug > correction in > >> >>> 4566bis, but also put that RFC in context with the other > >> extensions that > >> >>> exist. This may include: > >> >>> > >> >>> - Add minor extensions to the core document, similarly to > what > >> we did > >> >>> with IPv6 support (i.e., 4566 =3D 2327 + 3266). I don't know > which > >> of these > >> >>> extensions make sense to include, this would be an exercise > to > >> do, but > >> >>> let me give you one potential example: RFC 4574, the SDP > "label" > >> >>> attribute is a 6 pages RFC. > >> >>> > >> >>> - Adding references to extensions, when it makes sense. For > >> example, ICE > >> >>> should be referred somewhere (see my previous post regarding > the "o" > >> >>> line). I guess capneg could be also mentioned, perhaps > others. > >> >>> > >> >>> I know this is a bigger effort than anticipated, but the > result > >> could > >> >>> really help newcomers to this world. > >> >>> > >> >>> Now, it is your turn to express your opinions. Please do it. > >> >>> > >> >>> /Miguel > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Miguel A. Garcia > >> >> +34-91-339-3608 > >> >> Ericsson Spain > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> mmusic mailing list > >> >> mmusic@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> mmusic mailing list > >> >> mmusic@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > mmusic mailing list > >> > mmusic@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > >> > > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > >=20 > -- > Miguel A. Garcia > +34-91-339-3608 > Ericsson Spain > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list mmusic@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic From albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Mar 12 04:46:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6F621F875A; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.562, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 eazRj-tDx1XZ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B640921F86EE; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q2CBisoR027386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:46:29 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.50]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:46:23 +0100 From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" To: "'Jonathan Lennox'" , "'IETF AVTCore WG'" Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:46:22 +0100 Thread-Topic: RTPTOPO & H.248; RE: [AVTCORE] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo-offer-answer-00.txt Thread-Index: Acz+UKR6NWmv24w7TpinCrioOF59zABh5NzwABrCenA= Message-ID: <5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC9621626AD838@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <20120305215535.22939.91509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3A00EA94-E3D3-404A-8283-599D156481D8@vidyo.com> <4f5d300c.0755b40a.44ab.ffffc16a@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <4f5d300c.0755b40a.44ab.ffffc16a@mx.google.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Cc: megaco Subject: [Megaco] RTPTOPO & H.248; RE: [AVTCORE] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo-offer-answer-00.txt X-BeenThere: megaco@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Media Gateway Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:46:33 -0000 Hello Jonathan, like to open a separate email thread (because not related to Roni's comment= s): Scope of your draft is related to RTP TOPO considerations, complemented by = SDP O/A exchange.=20 Like to note that this subject is also addressed by ITU-T SG16 Q.3 for "RTP= topology functions" located in decomposed gateways according H.248. The work item is called H.248.RTPTOPO "RTP topology dependent RTCP handling by H.248 Media Gateways= with IP Terminations" You may find a draft document under e.g. http://wftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2009-2012/1202_Gen/AVD-4162.zip=20 There are some overlappings between your considerations and H.248.RTPTOPO, = primarily on "topology awareness", "topology configuration/control". H.248.RTPTOPO considers all your four indicated RTP topologies. The SDP O/A procedures are processed by the H.248 Media Gateway Controller = (MGC). The RTP functions are embedded in the H.248 Media Gateway. Appendix I provides some initial ideas how the RTP topology could be contro= lled via H.248 ("possibly triggered by SDP O/A"). Appendix II indicates also the correlation between SRTP vs RTP topologies. Regards, Albrecht -----Original Message----- From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni = Even Sent: Montag, 12. M=E4rz 2012 00:06 To: 'Jonathan Lennox'; 'IETF AVTCore WG' Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo-offer= -answer-00.txt Hi Jonathan, I read the draft and I assume you are talking about a relay architecture without signaling, is this the case, is it only for point to point? If the Topo-Transport-Translator need also to relay to multiple parties you need also for SRTP to discuss the key distribution and synchronization sinc= e not all parties join at the same time. This is discussed in drafty-ietf-avt-srtp-ekt. As for the offer answer discussion in section 4 the central box can enforce a single view which it calls the common mode. The participants who cannot support this common mode are second class participants. The assumption is that there will be at least a common audio mode (used to be G.711) or in RTCWeb the mandatory audio codec so second class participants will have the audio connection. The assumption is that most of the parameters you specified in section 4 are not fixed values but maximum values and any valu= e bellow it is also supported. I think that another issue that should be discussed in the topo-offer-answe= r is how the offer size scales if there are multiple streams and if the SSRC attribute is used to distribute the list of all participants for source selection. You have some information in draft-lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection but it does not discuss the issue of the offer size.=20 Roni Even=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Lennox > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 1:59 AM > To: IETF AVTCore WG > Subject: [AVTCORE] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo- > offer-answer-00.txt >=20 > Hi, all -- I've submitted this draft discussing the interaction of SDP > Offer/Answer with RTP topologies -- specifically, why the RTP topology > Topo-Transport-Translator can't be created with offer/answer, and why > this is actually a good thing. >=20 > This is a generalization of a some issues that came up in the > discussion of BUNDLE in Taipei. >=20 > Comments are welcome. >=20 > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > > From: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" > > Date: March 5, 2012 4:55:35 PM EST > > To: "i-d-announce@ietf.org" > > Subject: I-D Action: draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo-offer-answer- > 00.txt > > Reply-To: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > > Title : Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Topology > Considerations for Offer/ Answer-Initiated Sessions. > > Author(s) : Jonathan Lennox > > Filename : draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo-offer-answer- > 00.txt > > Pages : 11 > > Date : 2012-03-05 > > > > This document discusses a number of considerations related to the > > topologies of Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) sessions initated > > using the Session Description (SDP) unicast Offer/Answer Model, > > especially as applied to source-multiplexed sessions. > > > > The primary observation is that certain topologies cannot be > created > > by unicast SDP Offer/Answer. Notably, the it is not possible to > > negotiate the topology that RFC 5117 calls Topo-Transport- > Translator > > (or "relay"). > > > > As a consequence of this limitation, certain topological > assumptions > > can safely be made for RTP sessions initiated using unicast SDP > > Offer/Answer; and therefore, certain optimizations to RTP are > > possible in such sessions. This document also describes the > > optimizations that these assumptions make possible. > > > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo- > offe > > r-answer-00.txt > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-topo- > offer > > -answer-00.txt > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >=20 > -- > Jonathan Lennox > jonathan@vidyo.com >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance > avt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance avt@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From lganeshmysore@yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 08:21:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B408421F8568 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:21:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.5 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5] 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 JRrbATCSacg1 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BB03021F8567 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.65] by nm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Mar 2012 15:21:43 -0000 Received: from [72.30.22.33] by tm5.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Mar 2012 15:21:43 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1061.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Mar 2012 15:21:43 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 171732.43329.bm@omp1061.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 45105 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Mar 2012 15:21:42 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1332256902; bh=rdcrmk/qoOQlM68R4Dy4w5na7t1zjLnz9VWxAkFA7Xk=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=00gQx6xbbKDKft9d2++3fMDnz1aXoThYb1jqH3hF19F/Cq+Dooqhh2Dt1OquRy/WT3JNczAALTHHmtzDFuGu0mZN4qUGS8WQdA0k/fTLzPldWnyxJZzyDZyeIFOSFEoPdOB26VajG1IdZU8AG3xxy32wjba8X4IUtNIbm9U6Hog= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=3houYW+WDOOrm5nGUvwtmMFZ+zX0QRsRAM7WR0mtE/0PB5bbXRCdx6i20oNuHWoWZ/NRL52zYoE9ssX9AAArcTSd6rXTPBmoxNiP4ZrSZM8t87CzaoVBXSlVQ8izxw8hVgyz9XEtLQzEmJKae3+cMbCTdxKtXqe03CpJb58j5/Y=; X-YMail-OSG: VoW9Z74VM1lCbxNJ.w4VSBw.pum0K2iac7heaMW3jI6QE5A ZhAsBO_3o3CoF2hk0KKDiUQkFrvqBI79LAz5N5ZuzhGHOsaSNU72hYca8S0X vK_Hg.f5.sLPPPEALXU8rYQ322IjbF4ndbcdCug2ZksFa92peLJfTFBNmqiP WH157lHClgLzdAd7XQ311DY7dXwO8W3FJmLH3JEQ4VvX9TcViGGQgRsBmDno WmgHyY11mLyfBVN1D8hqe6Jms3SZE61tgvMavJXDlHxt2rHiB2XVp8aWzncd 3tKnK5ABDNtfeYtAoJFtL8a.u82k1qFI33xCGLyfeso5RIzjWobdmeyaogss _bxPTcc_EINTkfdgL0lGvUGkQ9FARGk53CWUzGxxYUboA51sZNlW1sJsZowy 1pDOxyAOs3RD_UW2_JrACwzsc65syx8KSUGbL6UJ6DCGCGR7RaN2dc300h8z _cYODED4Dqd3XpsubvvnjNk1Mcw1PjIvULEgY_jVGY9YfYIQAT1B1OQxVKVy MtdeKRR7RPDoSe.B3UoMZ4wZ7lxd_Il9XcEvUYeKP93PVMnI2FMLHwcEuY0b aw0458_PR4M4cJxL_VWW1 Received: from [89.102.245.201] by web113309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:21:42 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.116.338427 Message-ID: <1332256902.34579.yint-ygo-j2me@web113309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:21:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Ganesh Kumar To: megaco@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Megaco] (no subject) X-BeenThere: megaco@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Media Gateway Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:21:51 -0000 http://salsaytumbao.com/httpi3-p.php?idname=431 Get Back Some Financial Independence Into Your Life. _______________ He oftendone that. algernon visszaszerzesnek From albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Mar 27 05:53:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3678521F8830 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:53:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.805 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.443, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 sbOOG3w4BslA for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF3E21E8129 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q2RCqopY023685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:53:30 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.51]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:53:25 +0200 From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" To: megaco Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:53:23 +0200 Thread-Topic: Completion of Draft H.248.NATTP2P Thread-Index: Ac0MGJhTwAVhF7dZTg+YCpQErMtNWQ== Message-ID: <5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC9621637FAB11@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC9621637FAB11FRMRSSXCHMBSD_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: [Megaco] Completion of Draft H.248.NATTP2P X-BeenThere: megaco@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Media Gateway Control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:53:34 -0000 --_000_5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC9621637FAB11FRMRSSXCHMBSD_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable fyi, in order to complete the work on H.248.NATTP2P at coming SG16 meeting,= we've uploaded already a set of contributions: http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG16-120430-C/en C-791 to 798 (ex 796) /Albrecht --_000_5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC9621637FAB11FRMRSSXCHMBSD_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
fyi, in order to complete the work on H.248.NATTP2P a= t coming SG16 meeting, we've uploaded already a set of contributions:
 
C-791 to 798 (ex 796)
 
/Albrecht
 
 --_000_5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC9621637FAB11FRMRSSXCHMBSD_--