W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2018

Re: Towards a new charter for the WebRTC Working Group

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:57:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFY5mfMN0-xUu6S9dvh+7zJBitov7SQBVO=Woro92+0GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: T H Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 3:47 AM T H Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> > On 2 Jan 2018, at 05:26, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Martin said:
> >
> > "What are the plans for the protocol pieces for the new items?  I
> > haven't seen any plans - or internet-drafts - for those, and the bulk
> > of the work for some of these items is protocol work.  For instance, I
> > can understand why the group might choose not to rely on SDP for
> > negotiating new features, which leads to some API work, but the bulk
> > of the QUIC datachannels work is in defining protocols, not the API."
> >
> > [BA] The QUIC API presented at TPAC depends only on currently chartered
> work in the IETF QUIC WG (e.g. the QUIC transport document) as well as
> resolution of the QUIC multiplexing problem (by whatever approach the IETF
> decides on).
> >
> > As the QUIC transport document evolves, the QUIC API will presumably
> evolve as well (e.g. the proposed API currently provides a bi-directional
> stream abstraction).
> >
> > As Peter noted, it should be possible to implement the RTCDataChannel
> API on top of the proposed QUIC API once the IETF defines the protocol for
> QUIC datachannels.
> >
>
> I don't think I've seen the requirements/use-case doc for QUIC - or indeed
> any discussion about why only QUIC will do whatever the need is.
> If we are picking a new protocol we should be _super_ clear why.
> The current multilayer protocol soup at least has the advantages that each
> ingredient is reasonably well known and
> well specified. Most of them have multiple tested public implementations.
>
> This is useful in 2 ways:
> 1) it makes the spec possible to implement in a reasonable timeframe.
> 2) it makes it relatively easy to handwave about the security properties
> of the stack.
> e.g: "You were going to use x over DTLS - this is just the same, but has
> ICE support and works in a browser"
>
> Given that we haven't implemented 1.0 anywhere yet, I'm a bit negative
> about 2.0 including a load of new untested stuff
>

It sounds like you're making three completely different arguments:

1.  Something like "let's not do any 2.0 stuff until all the 1.0 stuff is
implemented".

2.  Something like "let's not do any untested things in 2.0, and QUIC is
untested".

3.  Let's only do things unless we have good reasons.


I don't agree with  #1.  If we wait until all the browsers are done
implementing all of 1.0 before we standardize anything else, we'll be
twiddling our thumbs for a long time in the WG and wasting valuable time.
The standardization process takes a long time, so we might as well start
now on work that will take a while rather than waiting until much later.
 We should do something with the time we have, but not sit around doing
nothing while implementations catch up.

I don't agree with #2.  While the QUIC that's coming out of the QUIC WG is
untested (since it's not done), the pre-draft version of QUIC out in the
while is very tested and used very widely in production.  In what sense is
QUIC untested?

I agree with #3, and I think there are good reasons to do QUIC data
channels.  It's is one of the most common things that people ask us to put
in Chrome (in relation to WebRTC).  And it's the "2.0" thing that's gotten
the most interest from the WebRTC WG (amongst ORTC, QUIC, and Cullen's
low-level ICE idea)

I could go into more specifics, but there are lots of reasons why QUIC data
channels are better than SCTP ones.  And that's the big reason: QUIC is
better than SCTP over DTLS.




> without really good reasons.
>
> T.
>
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2018 00:58:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 6 January 2018 00:58:05 UTC