Re: Clarifications: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

"Does not wish to be counted” in my case.

BR,
Alexey

> On 3 Dec 2018, at 19:10, Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 16:27:32 UTC