Re: [Moq] Charter adjustment

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the pointer to the HESP spec, Bernard. MoQ and HESP are very 
different approaches. I think that HESP strict adherence to HTTP implies 
risks of head-of-line blocking. Probably not an issue if low latency is 
defined as "under 400ms", but certainly important if we aim for "under 
200ms" or "under 150ms".

-- Christian Huitema

On 7/21/2022 8:33 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-theo-hesp
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:23 PM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>     On 7/21/2022 7:13 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>>     Ian said:
>>
>>     "HTTPS proxies have been around for a long time, and MoQ shares
>>     many of those properties."
>>
>>     [BA] Indeed, there are proposals (such as HESP
>>     <https://www.hespalliance.org/>) aimed at low-latency
>>     distribution that run over HTTP/3 and support caching.
>>
>>     This begs the question of "Why is MoQ better?"
>
>
>     If you want low latency, you need to support datagrams, and have
>     some way to fragment long frames over series of datagrams. But
>     then, if you require reassembly of fragmented frames at each step
>     in the relaying chain, you can easily run into head-of-line
>     blocking. That's something we can handle in MoQ. I don't know
>     whether HESP does that -- the specs do not appear to be publicly
>     available.
>
>     -- Christian Huitema
>
>