Re: [Webtransport] Magnus Westerlund's Block on charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Yes, totally understood that you don’t want to put any specific protocol suggestions in the charter but right now it seem a bit too loose (from a transport point of view). So if you don’t want what is proposed currently, do you have another proposal? 

If you are working on a draft yourself, I think it would actually be nice to have a first version of this draft out before the groups is fully started to people discussion the charter right now, would actually better understand what the discussion is about.

Mirja

> On 3. Feb 2020, at 11:44, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> Well, I certainly don't think we should build a new version of QUIC, and it seems likely that QUIC will be involved somehow, but Victor had some quite specific protocol suggestions which might or might not be what we want. In addition we need to ensure that there's some parity via a TCP-based mechanism.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:42 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Hi Ekr, hi Martin,
> 
> I thought that building something on top of QUIC or H3 are preconditions for any solution. If that is the case I would also prefer to put this in the charter (to exclude it clearly from the scope of this group to rebuild a new QUIC or a new version of quic or something like that which should be done in the quic group; similar for http which should be done in the httpbis in future). If you think that is somehow too restrictive what are the option open, you would want to work on in this new group?
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
> > On 3. Feb 2020, at 11:23, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > As MT says, I would not be comfortable if the charter defined the specific protocol starting points, given the uncertainty about exactly which pieces we will do.
> > 
> > -Ekr
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 11:53 AM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, at 04:09, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > > [BA] Would it be sufficient to add this clarification to the existing 
> > > sentence? The result would look like this.
> > > 
> > > The WebTransport working group will define new client-server protocols 
> > > or protocol extensions using QUIC or HTTP3 in order to support the 
> > 
> > I would instead say "building on existing protocol work" and then point out separately that this will definitely not define a new transport (or lower) layer protocol.
> > 
> > At Mozilla we are still uncertain about the set of protocols as currently proposed, and would feel uncomfortable limiting this to just those two *in the charter*.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Webtransport mailing list
> > Webtransport@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
> > -- 
> > Webtransport mailing list
> > Webtransport@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
> 