Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] RTCQuicTransport (#303)

@cynthia and I are looking at this in a breakout at the TAG's virtual face-to-face meeting.

In so far as we're able to understand what's going on, and given that further in-depth review by the TAG seems unlikely, I think we're comfortable closing this review.  The TAG isn't really the best source of expertise in this area; there's a lot more knowledge of this across a number of other venues such as the IETF QUIC WG and the IAB.

Given that there have been significant changes from the original proposal, we can only extrapolate the impact of the changes in terms of these proposals as general APIs outside of a WebRTC context. An updated explainer that explains the connection between the proposals would have been useful.

That said, we're happy to see that it is at least connected to Web Transport and to `RTCIceTransport` in what I *think* are reasonable ways, although it's not especially clear that the *naming* of the classes expresses those relationships clearly.  (For example `RTCQuicTransport` and `RTCIceTransport` sound like things that are at the same layer, rather than one being on top of the other.)

-- 
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/303#issuecomment-634334967