Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] TAG Review Request: RTCIceTransport & RTCQuicTransport (#296)

A few of my thoughts in response to the comments:

1.  This spec isn't part of the WebRTC WG, but it is part of the ORTC CG.  Do TAG reviews ever take place for CG specs?

2.  Support for unidirectional streams is being added now.  

3.  I agree ALPN and 0-RTT would be nice, but there are many uses of RTCQuicTransport that don't need those, and they can easily be added later.

4.  The current RTCQuicTransport API is very different than the websocket one.  If you want WHATWG streams, then a clear reason why would be appreciated (saying "don't be like websockets" isn't useful).

5.  As for authentication using ICE+QUIC, I don't think it changes the story at all as compared to ICE+DTLS+SCTP, which is completely possible today.  If an endpoint doesn't want to speak ICE+QUIC, they can reject it the same way they reject ICE+DTLS+SCTP today.  If started talking about dropping ICE and allowing client<->server QUIC without ICE, then we'd obviously have to make sure that such a thing followed CORS, because that's completely different.  

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/296#issuecomment-427528486