Re: Clarifications: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

I'll second that.

Cheers
Lennart

On 29.11.18 23:44, youenn fablet wrote:
> With the current document, I am against adoption.
> 
> I am for instance unclear whether the scope is RTC-only (seems to be implied by the current document) or includes client-server as well (seems to be where the document editors want to move IIUIC).
> 
> I agree with Roman about having a specific set of requirements. Here is a try at listing some that make sense to me:
> - The API should serve both RTC and client-server use cases
> - It should be possible to define a mapping of this API to different protocols (QUIC, SCTP, WebSocket)
> - The API should take inspiration from the existing data channel API, its level of abstractness and current feature set (multiplex, unreliability…)
> - The API should reuse existing web primitives where it makes sense. Using WhatWG streams should in particular be investigated.
> 
> While some requirements are not met yet by the current QUIC document, it seems ongoing work will address at least some of these.
> 
> The name of the current document (webrtc-quic) is also a potential problem if it tries to specify everything.
> I wonder whether the spec work should not be split in more items that could advance at their own pace.
> Here is a potential list (each item might not deserve its own spec):
> - API definition
> - QUIC API specialization
> - API mapping to QUIC
> - QUIC API for RTC
> - QUIC API for client-server
> - SCTP API specialization
> - API mapping to SCTP
> I would think smaller and more focused documents to be easier to adopt by the WG.
> 
> Hope this helps,
>  Y
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:35 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>
>> When tallying the arguments and positions for or against adoption, I was
>> unable to determine clearly the position of the following people who
>> have participated in the thread:
>>
>> - Youenn Fablet
>> - Cullen Jennings
>> - Sergio Garcia Murillo
>> - Lennart Grahl
>> - Alexey Aylarov
>> - Roman Shpout
>>
>> I could make guesses based on commentary, but that would be guesswork;
>> it would be better if the people themselves were to say "Favors
>> adoption", "Against adoption", or "Does not wish to be counted".
>>
>> I also note that in Lyon there were ~10 people supporting adoption; so
>> far I've tallied 9 people supporting adoption on the list; if the
>> remaining supporters wish to be part of the tally, they'd better speak
>> up now. (I think both of the people not supporting adoption in Lyon have
>> spoken up.)
>>
>> Harald
>>
>>
>> Den 20.11.2018 09:57, skrev Harald Alvestrand:
>>> **
>>>
>>> *From the Lyon summary of decisions:*
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> "The WG will ask the list if we should adopt the WEBRTC-QUIC API
>>> document (in room: 2 opposed, ~10 in favor)"
>>>
>>> The question is whether we should adopt this document:
>>>
>>> **https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-quic/
>>>
>>> as a Working Group document
>>>
>>> Adoption as a WG document does not mean commitment to any specific part
>>> of the API, or any specific timeline for processing the document to CR
>>> and beyond, but does mean that we can issue the document as a first
>>> public working draft (FPWD) and ask for IPR declarations (if any).
>>>
>>>
>>> My personal read is that adoption as a WG document means that "we have
>>> consensus that there is a problem here that needs solving, the problem
>>> is within the scope of this WG, and this document is a start on the way
>>> to solving it".
>>>
>>> Non-adoption would indicate either that the problem shouldn't be solved,
>>> that the problem is out of scope for this WG, or that this document is
>>> so far away from the right solution that it's not a starting point the
>>> WG wants to consider.
>>>
>>>
>>> We are seeking both statements of support and statements of opposition.
>>> The chairs will tally the responses and attempt to draw a conclusion.
>>>
>>> Please state your opinion to the**list on or before Wednesday, November 28.
>>>
>>> Harald*,* for the chairs
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>

Received on Monday, 3 December 2018 16:11:04 UTC