Re: [Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Adoption is now complete. Victor has uploaded the WG document:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3-00
Please give it a read and file issues on the official WG GitHub repo:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3/issues

Cheers,
David

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 1:34 PM David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> In the last 2.5 weeks of the adoption call, the chairs received
> multiple indications of support, and no objections. We therefore
> declare consensus: draft-vvv-webtransport-http3 has now been
> adopted by the WEBTRANS WG.
>
> The chairs will work with the author to move the GitHub
> repository under our WG organization.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 4:16 PM David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi WebTransport enthusiasts,
>>
>> This consensus is now confirmed: for the foreseeable future,
>> the WEBTRANS working group will focus on building a single
>> UDP-based protocol for WebTransport, and that protocol will
>> run atop HTTP/3.
>>
>> Our next step is to adopt a document that matches this
>> description. The only matching proposal that has been
>> discussed on this list so far is Victor's
>> "WebTransport over HTTP/3" individual draft:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-http3
>>
>> We are therefore placing this document in a call for adoption.
>>
>> Please reply to this email stating whether you support adoption
>> of draft-vvv-webtransport-http3 by the WEBTRANS WG. Note
>> that WG adoption does not indicate consensus on the contents
>> of the document, only that it's a reasonable starting point for
>> us to start working on. As such, please DO NOT send comments
>> about the technical details of the draft on this email thread - please
>> create a separate email thread on <[e-mail]> or open
>> a GitHub issue at <https://github.com/vasilvv/webtransport/issues>.
>>
>> As usual, if you believe that we should not adopt this document,
>> please state why. In our last meeting we've noted some concerns
>> around pooling for example, and we plan on discussing those as
>> a working group once the document is adopted.
>>
>> This adoption call will last for two weeks until 2021-02-10.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:25 AM David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi WebTransport enthusiasts,
>>>
>>> Today we had an interim of the IETF WEBTRANS WG,
>>> where we reached consensus in the (virtual) room on
>>> the following questions:
>>>
>>> Question 1: number of protocols
>>>     Should the working group adopt only one UDP-based transport?
>>>     1A: only one transport (QUIC or HTTP/3)
>>>     1B: multiple transports (QUIC and HTTP/3)
>>>
>>> The consensus was option 1A.
>>>
>>> Additionally, we noted that this does not preclude us from
>>> building a second protocol at a later date if new information
>>> emerges.
>>>
>>> Question 2: UDP-based protocols
>>>     Which UDP-based option should we adopt as a starting
>>>     point for WebTransport protocol?
>>>     2A: WebTransport over HTTP/3
>>>     2B: WebTransport over QUIC directly (separate ALPN)
>>>
>>> The consensus was option 2A.
>>>
>>> Additionally, we discussed pooling and decided that we would
>>> not allow pooling in WebTransport over HTTP/3 for now, due
>>> to the complexities of pooling.
>>>
>>> We'd like to confirm this consensus on the list. If you disagree
>>> with these points, please reply on the list. If you do so, please
>>> state how strongly you feel - whether you are expressing a
>>> preference, or an imperative. Please also provide as much
>>> detail as possible to explain your position. Please also respond
>>> if you support this consensus - a simple "I support this consensus"
>>> email to the list would be helpful.
>>>
>>> We'll be running this consensus call for two weeks, please reply
>>> before 2021-01-26, the chairs will determine consensus on that date.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>