Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

I support adoption too. I would be excited to see the working group tackle
the NV stuff that Peter presented as possible further down the line things
(like media over QUIC). Having access to transports, streams and
encoders/decoders in service workers would be incredibly powerful. Even if
we don't think about NV use cases, RTCPeerConnections are heavily used for
their data channels and QUIC seems to solve several problems that would
make data transfer nicer; getting rid of SDP, less handshakes, etc.

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 1:16 PM Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> > *
> >
>
>
>