public-webrtc@w3.org from July 2013 by author

Adam Bergkvist

• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: WebRTC Web APIs for On-board Multimedia Devices Handling and Control (Monday, 8 July)

Adam Roach

• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)

Adrian Georgescu

• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Tuesday, 16 July)

Alex Russell

• Re: DOM Futures (Monday, 15 July)

Alexandre GOUAILLARD

• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)

Alexey Aylarov

• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)

Anton Venema

• WebRTC Java Applet (Tuesday, 23 July)

Bernard Aboba

• RE: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)

Bjoern Hoehrmann

• Re: Membership of this WG (Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers) (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Sunday, 14 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Saturday, 13 July)

bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

• [Bug 22428] Please unify the WebSocket and RTCDataChannel "readyState". enum RTCDataChannelState { "connecting", "open", "closing", "closed" }; VS const unsigned short CONNECTING = 0 [...] (Wednesday, 3 July)
• [Bug 22428] Please unify the WebSocket and RTCDataChannel "readyState". enum RTCDataChannelState { "connecting", "open", "closing", "closed" }; VS const unsigned short CONNECTING = 0 [...] (Tuesday, 2 July)
• [Bug 20819] no priority API (Tuesday, 2 July)

Charles Eckel (eckelcu)

• RE: setting bandwidth (Monday, 29 July)

Christer Holmberg

• VS: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• VS: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• VS: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)

cowwoc

• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Saturday, 27 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Why people munge SDP (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Unified plan IPR (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: Membership of this WG (Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers) (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Sunday, 14 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Sunday, 14 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Saturday, 13 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Saturday, 13 July)
• DOM Futures (was: Mediastream Recording implementation) (Saturday, 13 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Saturday, 6 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Thursday, 4 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: API design (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: API design (Monday, 1 July)

Cullen Jennings

• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)

Cullen Jennings (fluffy)

• Re: Audio and Opus configurability for speed and quality (at the expense of bandwidth) (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: Audio and Opus configurability for speed and quality (at the expense of bandwidth) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: sdpMLineIndex required in RTCIceCandidate? (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: muting/hold (was Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API? (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 24 July)
• setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Pause / resume (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Why people munge SDP (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: do we want success and failure callbacks on addStream? (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Tuesday, 23 July)

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)

Dominique Hazael-Massieux

• Re: DOM Futures (Saturday, 13 July)
• TPAC Registration open (Tuesday, 9 July)

Emil Ivov

• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Friday, 5 July)

Eric Rescorla

• Re: setting bandwidth (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: do we want success and failure callbacks on addStream? (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: muting/hold (was Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Saturday, 13 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (was: Mediastream Recording implementation) (Saturday, 13 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Thursday, 11 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: API design (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: API design (Tuesday, 2 July)

Greg Billock

• Re: DOM Futures (Monday, 15 July)

Göran Eriksson AP

• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• A view on the current webRTC API and next step... (Tuesday, 23 July)

Harald Alvestrand

• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Fwd: [rtcweb] e= lines (Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions ..) (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Membership of this WG (Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers) (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Moving forward with SDP control (Tuesday, 16 July)

Hrishikesh Kulkarni

• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)

Hutton, Andrew

• RE: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)

Iñaki Baz Castillo

• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: do we want success and failure callbacks on addStream? (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: Cross posting: Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Monday, 29 July)
• SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: do we want success and failure callbacks on addStream? (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• IPR related to draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00 (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: XSF Jingle Special Interest Group. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Saturday, 6 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Thursday, 4 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: API design (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)

Jim Barnett

• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Tuesday, 23 July)
• RE: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Monday, 15 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• do we want success and failure callbacks on addStream? (Friday, 12 July)
• RE: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)

Johannes Hange

• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Monday, 8 July)
• Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Saturday, 6 July)

Justin Uberti

• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)

K Moon

• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)

Kiran Kumar

• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 10 July)

Lonce Wyse

• Re: Audio and Opus configurability for speed and quality (at the expense of bandwidth) (Thursday, 25 July)

Martin Steinmann

• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Saturday, 6 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• RE: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)

Martin Thomson

• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Saturday, 27 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Be vewy, vewy qwiet... (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)

Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)

• RE: Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 24 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Thursday, 18 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] e= lines (Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions ..) (Thursday, 18 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• RE: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)

Max Jonas Werner

• Re: setting bandwidth (Monday, 29 July)

Michael Tuexen

• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)

Parthasarathi R

• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)

Peter Thatcher

• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• RE: Moving forward with SDP control (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion (Friday, 12 July)

Philipp Hancke

• sdpMLineIndex required in RTCIceCandidate? (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Saturday, 6 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Thursday, 4 July)

piranna@gmail.com

• Re: a new API proposal (Wednesday, 31 July)
• a new API proposal (Wednesday, 31 July)
• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Sunday, 28 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Audio and Opus configurability for speed and quality (at the expense of bandwidth) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Why people munge SDP (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: A view on the current webRTC API and next step... (Tuesday, 23 July)
• server-centric vs. P2P (was Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• RE: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: do we want success and failure callbacks on addStream? (Friday, 12 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Thursday, 11 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Thursday, 11 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Saturday, 6 July)
• Re: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Saturday, 6 July)
• Re: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Saturday, 6 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: The best API possible (Was: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers) (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)

Ralph Meijer

• XSF Jingle Special Interest Group. (Monday, 22 July)
• Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)

Randell Jesup

• Re: API design (Monday, 1 July)

Rich Tibbett

• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Wednesday, 10 July)

Rob Manson

• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)

Robin Raymond

• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)

Roman Shpount

• Re: a new API proposal (Wednesday, 31 July)
• Re: a new API proposal (Wednesday, 31 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Trickle ICE questions? (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Saturday, 20 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: API design (Wednesday, 3 July)

Silvia Pfeiffer

• Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Monday, 29 July)
• RE: setting bandwidth (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Friday, 26 July)
• Re: Improve error message when browser denies access to getUserMedia() (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Audio and Opus configurability for speed and quality (at the expense of bandwidth) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: muting/hold (was Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: setting bandwidth (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Why people munge SDP (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: muting/hold (was Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• muting/hold (was Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: URL.createObjectURL() for DataChannels (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: JavaScript API on top of SDP (Monday, 15 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Saturday, 6 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)

Stefan Håkansson LK

• Re: Audio and Opus configurability for speed and quality (at the expense of bandwidth) (Monday, 29 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Moving forward with SDP control (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Thursday, 18 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Re: Discussing new API proposals (Wednesday, 17 July)
• Discussing new API proposals (Tuesday, 16 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Sunday, 14 July)
• Re: DOM Futures (Saturday, 13 July)

Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)

• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)

Ted Hardie

• Cross posting: Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC (Tuesday, 30 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Locus of API discussion (Tuesday, 9 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)
• Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Tuesday, 2 July)

tim panton

• Re: Audio and Opus configurability for speed and quality (at the expense of bandwidth) (Thursday, 25 July)
• Re: Recap from WebRTC World (Wednesday, 24 July)
• Re: Google's position on the WebRTC API (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups. (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Monday, 22 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface (Friday, 19 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)
• Re: API design (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)
• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Wednesday, 3 July)

Tim Panton new

• Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers (Friday, 5 July)

Venkateswar Reddy Melachervu

• WebRTC Web APIs for On-board Multimedia Devices Handling and Control (Monday, 8 July)

Last message date: Wednesday, 31 July 2013 23:22:18 UTC