Subject: [Moq] Re: Monday's agenda is ready
From: Alan Frindell <[email-masked]>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty=[email-masked]>
Cc: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>, MOQ Mailing List <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:04:29 -0700
List-Id: Media over QUIC <moq.ietf.org>

Thanks Mo.  Do you have an application that uses subgroup IDs with specific
semantic values that would break if this change were adopted?  Can you
explain how it works?

Thanks

-Alan

On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 7:43 AM Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> 1608 is a major change to the core data model that makes subgroups
> semantically meaningless, as they would encode transport irregularities
> that destroy the app’s semantic meaning. A primary driver for adopting
> subgroups was video with scalable
> 
> 1608 is a major change to the core data model that makes subgroups
> semantically meaningless, as they would encode transport irregularities
> that destroy the app’s semantic meaning. A primary driver for adopting
> subgroups was video with scalable layers where the subgroup ID identified
> the layer. 1608 essentially removes subgroup ID, so there is no way to
> identify layers using MOQT alone. LOC originally embedded layer identifiers
> but removed this when MOQT added subgroups. I still think this was the
> right direction to have generally consistent semantics across apps at the
> core MOQT level data model.
>
> I agree it is useful (essential in some cases) to know if an object starts
> a subgroup. This can be indicated in the subgroup header using different
> type values for start of subgroup vs continued subgroup. IMO, that is a
> much better solution than changing the core data model.
>
> Thanks,
> Mo
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Alan Frindell <afrind=[email-masked]>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2026 9:26:30 PM
> *To:* Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* MOQ Mailing List <[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* [Moq] Re: Monday's agenda is ready
>
> The slides are posted here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2026-moq-14/materials/slides-interim-2026-moq-14-sessa-moqt-prs-and-issues-00
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2026-moq-14/materials/slides-interim-2026-moq-14-sessa-moqt-prs-and-issues-00__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!6Cj0bahZSaSnjCSoCic4PZ127U8j60vM1-X0VMHDDposAkJ44vKRz8bn-umkD9QdQAvUK9C3nMR8C0amg7fvu_y9vhU$>
>
> We're still waiting on some content so look for an update, or new slides
> from Victor on his Delivery Timeout proposal and Required Request ID
> Alternate.
>
> Reading up on the issues/slides in advance will help us maximize our
> discussion time.
>
> #1608 Make Subgroup ID identical to first Object Id in the Subgroup
>
> #1519/#1603 Required Request ID
>
> #1613 Add MAX_REQUEST_UPDATES setup option and TOO_MANY_REQUEST_UPDATES
> error
>
> #1605 Split DELIVERY_TIMEOUT into two types of timeout
>
> Was it a mistake to require negotiation for unknown params
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/moq/C-pytBAJowMXwQdtTDGN1zgis7Q/__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!6Cj0bahZSaSnjCSoCic4PZ127U8j60vM1-X0VMHDDposAkJ44vKRz8bn-umkD9QdQAvUK9C3nMR8C0amg7fvcggVovQ$>
> ?
>
> Time Permitting
>
>  - Going through open Joining FETCH Dissent issues.  Slides are there.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Alan
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 7:42 PM Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> You can find it on datatracker. It's all editor time. Alan, please post
> issue slides. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can find it on datatracker. It's all editor time.
>
> Alan, please post issue slides.
> --
> Moq mailing list -- [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email-masked]
>
>