P2P vs client-server (Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC)

On 11/20/2018 06:08 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> (with chair hat off)
>
> Microsoft is in support of the document, with the understanding that
> the focus is on peer-to-peer only.  client-server should be a separate
> document (and may need to be developed elsewhere in W3C).

(chair hat off)

I disagree with my esteemed colleague; I think that a workable
client-server solution (as seen from a browser client) is a true subset
of a peer-to-peer solution, and should have the same API; having two
different APIs is not terribly useful.

We already have an API (fetch) for accessing HTTP over QUIC, which
fulfils the special requirements for HTTP.

>
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io
> <mailto:varun@callstats.io>> wrote:
>
>> 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. 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Varun. 
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 0.58, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
>> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> 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:
>>
>>     https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-quic/
>>     <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebrtc-quic%2F&data=02%7C01%7CBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7C2aef474a4be8410f3dbb08d64f07c6d2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636783292146537624&sdata=D5fMJaK78Unoq0De7fcrESyRnYBdDoRu2uLY%2BPgTpzQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>     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, callstats.io
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcallstats.io&data=02%7C01%7CBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7C2aef474a4be8410f3dbb08d64f07c6d2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636783292146547637&sdata=gxzqfhebRJauMXGMiv5QU0g6bJ5Mzxf9QcGrM3cGZ24%3D&reserved=0>
>> http://www.callstats.io
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.callstats.io&data=02%7C01%7CBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7C2aef474a4be8410f3dbb08d64f07c6d2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636783292146547637&sdata=VgTnQmZEHJ3KkK3TmTfvZB8D6%2B5%2BnNkMMJD1vxGqIQE%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics.
>> We are hiring!: www.callstats.io/jobs/
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.callstats.io%2Fjobs%2F&data=02%7C01%7CBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7C2aef474a4be8410f3dbb08d64f07c6d2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636783292146557637&sdata=QR6CiYcsZ7roTcsS2HKUSoU53v7BI3%2FqIIJieZtJHtM%3D&reserved=0>