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

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:57 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:

> No I meant do you have another protocol proposal (given you said you might
> not want what is proposed by Victor)?
>

Well, what I'm actually saying is that it's not clear that we need *all*
the ones proposed by Victor.

With that said, it's not clear to me if Victor has a TCP binding yet, but
one is clearly needed.

-Ekr

> > On 3. Feb 2020, at 11:55, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:52 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > I'm fine with the current text. I'm arguing against the attempts to
> aggressively narrow it.
> >
> > -Ekr
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
>