Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:59 AM 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/
> <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.*
>

I am not in favor of adopting this work at this time, for two reasons:

1. The IETF QUIC work is not sufficiently mature to support this.
Presently, it's just for HTTP.2
2. The problem statement is very unclear; it seems primarily to be "have
QUIC support", but that's not a problem statement, it's a statement of
solution. The place to start here is with a statement of the technical
functionality that we want that we don't currently have, and that's not
what there is now.

-Ekr

* Harald, for the chairs *
>
>