[AVTCORE] Garbled notes from last week's interim

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2024 19:20 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:20:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dyZSvePYA=Z_WuonJKng35qSOpJgoybBjUfgGbW6ApHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b108c00611d51a36"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/YyT9sU2Nv1mdvmB1tGvrYhzBe4o>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Garbled notes from last week's interim
Precedence: list

I THINK what happened, was that I was merging the two versions of the
HedgeDoc (https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2024-avtcore-00-avtcore
and https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2024-avtcore-01-avtcore)
DURING the meeting and wasn't paying sufficiently close attention to some
discussion on RoQ, but some confusion resulted.

Also, the datatracker page for the meeting says the Hedgedoc is
https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2024-avtcore-01-avtcore, but
everyone (except me) was using
https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2024-avtcore-00-avtcore, so I
moved my notes to -00. It's probably good to copy -00 to -01, after we get
-00 correct.

The notes say


   - Slide 31, multipath QUIC support, suggest to close issue with notfix.
   We will open a new issue for multiplexing, and Mathis will post the PR to
   the mailing list. Agreed.
   - Slide 32: Issue #65, propose to close this issue as nonfix, but add new
   issue on multiplexing. Bernard: Can this be done by IETF119? Yes. Peter: it
   makes sense to do this if RoQ is the only thing on the QUIC connection.
   Conclusion: implement both. Jonathan notes that we’re deferring sharing
   connections with other protocols, so deferring discussion of what happens
   when you do that makes sense.

They should say


   - Slide 31, Issue #51, multipath QUIC support, suggest to close issue
   with NextDoc. (Agreed)
   - Slide 32: Issue #65, this issue conflated multiplexing RTP/RTCP with
   other RTP/RTCP, and RTP/RTCP with other protocols. propose to close this
   issue as wontfix (because RTP/RTCP with RTP/RTCP has been addressed in the
   document), but add a new issue on multiplexing RTP/RTCP with
   other protocols.  Mathis will post the PR to the mailing list. (Agreed)
   - Slide 34, Issue #84: Jonathan notes that we’re deferring sharing
   connections with other protocols, so deferring discussion of what happens
   when you do that makes sense.
   - Slide 45, "Next steps" - can we get to WGLC by IETF 119? Bernard: Yes,
   but ... we should probably publish as Experimental (Spencer agreed), and we
   should probably add a section to the document about next steps and things
   to learn from deployment

I can't figure out what "Peter: it makes sense to do this if RoQ is the
only thing on the QUIC connection." refers to. Does anyone remember?

Best,

Spencer

[AVTCORE] Garbled notes from last week's interim Spencer Dawkins at IETF