Re: [Moq] Exploring HTTP/3

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Luke and Lucas,

Just following along with a comment Licas made:

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:08 PM Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Luke,
>
> For distribution, I think HTTP can probably be massaged into meeting the
> needs of the group. That was a thought I had when reading your early WARP
> drafts. I would review something if you put it out.
>
> However, I think things get trickier when we consider the charter text
> "The solution will be implementable in both browser and non-browser
> endpoints.". The browser part makes things tricky. It probably rules out
> non-kludgy HTTP/[2,3] server push solutions for distribution (because
> there's no API for push, and resource transfer optimization via push is
> seemingly getting overtaken by 103 early hints now). So I agree avoiding
> push is probably a good way to go.
>

 I'm also looking at the charter text, but at this part, "Media will be
mapped onto underlying QUIC mechanisms (QUIC streams and/or QUIC datagrams)
and *can be used over raw QUIC or WebTransport.*"

It's certainly possible for the working group to read "can be used" as
permissive, so allowing the MOQ protocol to be used over HTTP, but not
using WebTransport, but I do have an issue for the requirements draft,
here: No support for H3 media transport?
<https://github.com/fiestajetsam/draft-gruessing-moq-requirements/issues/79>.
asking that we verify what we're actually doing, before we get too far down
the path toward a finished MOQ protocol.

So, what do people think we are actually doing? 😎

Best,

Spencer