Re: [Moq] Scope of MOQ and ULL Streaming

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 07:54 Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Where I think MOQ is, is that we agreed to charter MOQ for a minimum of
> three use cases ("use cases including live streaming, gaming, and media
> conferencing <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/moq/about/>") as a starting
> point, we haven't written down the differences between those three use
> cases, and we've been steadily removing attributes in the use cases section
> of the requirements draft (so, no longer distinguishing among the use cases
> based on latency, in the editor's version
> <https://fiestajetsam.github.io/draft-gruessing-moq-requirements/draft-gruessing-moq-requirements.html#name-use-cases-informing-this-pr>
> ).
>

[BA] The problem is that these use cases are not equally likely to adopt
MoQ. Today game streaming and conferencing deployments often use WebRTC.
Those game streaming deployments that don’t use WebRTC A/V typically don’t
need intermediaries or ingestion so interop efforts focus on API
availability in different browsers, rather than protocol support.

In contrast, live streaming (which to my mind includes large scale Town
Hall Meetings and Webinars) has a clear need to evolve ingestion beyond
RTMP, and on the distribution side, intermediaries are common. While there
is an incumbent (HLS/DASH), there are needs that are not yet met that could
be articulated.

Since a requirements document is not an applicability statement, you don’t
need to worry that omitting a use case will inhibit its development.