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

Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:32:05 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWqyiH=ud5EPevOJzyF2W=VXGy2KAtLdNmJxNCD7bTwng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Mozilla is entering a “this document is so far away from the right
solution that it's not a starting point the WG wants to consider”

This isn’t a result of a deep and abiding love of SCTP data channels,
or a hatred of QUIC.  However, we are convinced that - despite
considerable effort being invested in this work - that work was both
premature and ill-directed.  QUIC is the new shininess for sure, and
we believe that it holds promise, but the proposed API is not a good
basis for a web API.

The present effort treats QUIC as an ends, not a means.  That’s
dangerous. It means that you fixate on properties of the tool, and not
on addressing use cases.

In our assessment, there are no use cases for which the proposed QUIC
work item is superior to SCTP. And none of the uses cases proposed for
NV are unsolvable with SCTP.

p.s., webrtc-quic is still labelled as W3C Editor’s Draft.  I know
that the chairs believe this to be appropriate, but we don’t agree
that it is.  We would like https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-quic/pull/87
to be merged.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Harald Alvestrand <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/
> 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 Friday, 23 November 2018 01:32:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:45 UTC