Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

We (CALLSTATS I/O)  are in support of this document.

And that the scope be limited to QUIC transport, and unidirectional and
bidirectional QUIC streams.


On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 0.58, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:

> *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:
> <> 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 *
> --
Founder, CEO,

Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics.
We are hiring!:

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2018 16:45:43 UTC