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

Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:23:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCf+z_VW0gzSE-9vmB3JthQLFwB9NtSAhYAnYQ0uqEJeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
 Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:34 AM Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>

> Speaking with my personal hat on (which happens to align with my Google
> hat at this point), I think this is the key sentence:
> Den 29.11.2018 04:05, skrev Peter Thatcher:
> > We don't need to wait for the QUIC WG to finish everything to start on
> > API design, nor on getting implementation or developer feedback.  There
> > is plenty that we needed to figure out in parallel, and plenty we still
> > do while we wait for the QUIC WG to finish.
> >
> > We've been doing this already for a year, and we're ahead of where we
> > would have been had we waited.
> The value of waiting is negative, not positive.
> We need to align with the QUIC work at the finish line, not the starting
> line.

The metaphor of a finish line is an interesting one.  From my perspective,
if you start running before the other party does, you may find that the
two parties are running in different directions once both are running.
the other party could decide it must run in the direction you are running,
if it doesn't correspond to where they would want to go.

This call for adoption is for an API that includes elements where the party
developing the network protocol has not started running.  It appears to be
happening without the coordination involved that would let the other party
tell you when it has picked a direction that is stable.

That's not good planning for a race or a development effort, in my opinion,
and I
hope this metaphor makes it clearer why.


Received on Thursday, 29 November 2018 18:24:22 UTC

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