Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

I support adoption. I honestly have not looked much into the API itself,
but I think that given the momentum for QUIC in other areas, adding it
to WebRTC could potentially help simplifying the stack of an enpoint
communicating with a browser.

-- Stefan
On 2018-11-20 09:59, 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:
> 
> **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 Thursday, 22 November 2018 12:15:12 UTC