Re: [Moq] Agenda topics for side meeting on Tuesday

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

So, full disclosure -

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:23 PM Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 10:11 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Ian,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:38 AM Ian Swett <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've looked at the following uses cases fairly closely for QUIC in the
>>> past.
>>>
>>>    - Live Video Ingestion - Existing protocols don't fully meet our
>>>    needs (ie: performance vs reliability, standardization, etc), and this is
>>>    becoming a real problem.
>>>    - Live Video Delivery - Currently we're pushing the edge of what
>>>    HTTP can do efficiently, including some non-standard extensions.  This is
>>>    also not optimized for QUIC or HTTP/3, which could improve performance.
>>>    - WebRTC over QUIC, ie: RTP over QUIC + Datachannels over QUIC -
>>>    There could be a number of benefits of WebRTC over QUIC.  A number of
>>>    people who were interested in this are now focused on WebTransport, but
>>>    there's still the matter of what you send over WebTransport, so I think
>>>    there's some work to be done in addition to finishing WebTransport.
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for this - it's very helpful, and it will definitely be on the
>> list for tomorrow's meeting.
>>
>>
>>> As with QUIC, I see we have a number of different working groups
>>> different parts or applications could land in.  I worry that could cause
>>> fragmentation if each sub-domain solves their problem without collaborating
>>> closely with others.  I'm not sure if a new WG(ie: QUIC-style) is necessary
>>> here, but I do think caution should be taken to ensure we don't reinvent
>>> the wheel 3+ different ways.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, exactly. It's sad when three people working in isolation solve a
>> similar problem in three different ways that have to be implemented three
>> times, but it's doubly sad when they all show up in QUIC either asking for
>> advice on three similar solutions, or even proposing three similar but
>> incompatible extensions! 😈
>>
>
> One common theme that might needs addressing is : what sort of API knobs
> can be exposed by transport (QUIC) to help apps know about losses/recovery
> and influence the choice of congestion control . If some aspects of this
> can be done in a standard way, it would definitely help
> streaming/interactive use-cases.
>

Yes, exactly (it's listed as a consideration in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9049.html#name-support-in-endpoint-protoco
.

Having said that, I fully expect that we're going to end up with at least
some pain points that are outside the typical IETF working group's charter.
The ones I'm especially aware of, are

   - The kind of tight integration between codec operation and awareness of
   path characteristics we've been talking about at length, in the thread
   Christian started at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/moq/jk9eDELqs_gyg1kSGAmhhzJ-_ts/.
   What I think is normal, is that we tend to have ICCRG looking at congestion
   control mechanisms (quoting today's ICCRG session) "until they're ready to
   come to the IETF. So I think this is worth pursuing, but chartering it in
   the IETF will probably be more complicated than adopting a draft i(say)
   encapsulating RTP in QUIC.
   - I'll say more about this in a reply to another note in this
   (increasingly awesome) thread, but there are things we've been talking
   about that are likely required in order to build a product, but aren't
   candidates for standardization, for various reasons.

But I still think they're worth talking about during our meeting tomorrow,
because if we can agree on a strategy for them, we can take them off the
"media over QUIC" table without dropping them on the floor.

Best,

Spencer, who isn't even the MOQ list admin, and so is definitely not
running anything for the rest of the MOQ fans!


> Best,
>>
>> Spencer, who should be apologizing to Lucas for even thinking such a
>> thing!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Ian
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 7:13 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, three things I should say before the Tuesday side meeting.
>>>>
>>>> First - this side meeting will be under Notewell, because it's focused
>>>> on input to the IETF.
>>>>
>>>> Second - I'm planning to record the session, just so I can verify what
>>>> we said, so that I can produce decent minutes. If anyone objects, please
>>>> also volunteer to take excellent notes!
>>>>
>>>> Third - James and I are most familiar with the RTP over QUIC proposals,
>>>> but we recognize that there will be commonalities between various
>>>> proposals, so  we're perfectly happy to talk about other use cases and
>>>> requirement sets. So, letting us know what you're thinking about, as
>>>> requested below, will be super useful.
>>>>
>>>> Please Do The Right Thing.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Spencer
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 12:36 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear MOQ fans,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's time to put together an agenda for the Tuesday meeting. I'd like
>>>>> for this meeting to be a working session, not a forum for presentations, so
>>>>> please keep that in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a high-order bit, I think we've spent a lot of time thinking about
>>>>> use cases here, and I'd like to push down another level, and make sure we
>>>>> understand what the work for the IETF (and possibly for the IRTF) is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know what the protocol work is for my use cases:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Mapping RTP onto QUIC (many options exist, so picking one or
>>>>>    more would be helpful) This is squarely in scope for AVTCORE
>>>>>    - Mapping RTCP onto QUIC (which may be the same approach as used
>>>>>    for RTP, or may include things like using QUIC facilities instead of RTCP
>>>>>    facilities, where those QUIC facilities exist).. Again, this is squarely in
>>>>>    scope for AVTCORE
>>>>>    - SDP description for RTP/RTCP over QUIC. This is squarely in
>>>>>    scope for MMUSIC, as soon as we figure out the details in AVTCORE.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the IETF/IRTF work for your use cases?
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Moq mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/moq
>>>>
>>> --
>> Moq mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/moq
>>
>