Re: [Masque] Proposed draft charter

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:50 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just following up - I had two questions, and people might have missed the
> first one .
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:31 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm finally reading this charter, as opposed to looking at the words ...
>> mostly, this looks fine to me.
>>
>> A couple of things inline..
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 6:05 AM Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=
>> 40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (Deleted down to )
>
>>
>>> QUIC is a good candidate protocol for tunneling these types of traffic,
>>> as QUIC
>>> provides secure connectivity, multiplexed streams, and connection
>>> migration.
>>> Further, HTTP/3 supports an established request/response semantic that
>>> can be
>>> used to set up and configure services.
>>>
>>
>> The definition of QUIC as practiced in 2020 is "HTTP/3 over QUIC",
>> although we certainly see proposals for other application protocols over
>> something QUIC-like. Would something like
>>
>> "HTTP/3, carried over QUIC, is a good candidate protocol for tunneling
>> these types of traffic, as QUIC
>> provides secure connectivity, multiplexed streams, and connection
>> migration.
>> Further, HTTP/3 supports an established request/response semantic that
>> can be
>> used to set up and configure services."
>>
>> make that clearer?
>>
>
> (deleted)
>

No, I dont think this is correct. We are most likely going to use Datagram
for tunnelling UDP, and that is not part of H3.

>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
> --
> Masque mailing list
> Masque@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>