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

[Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-webtrans/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This charter is so open ended on what protocol that is to be developed that it
could define a new IP version as well as transport protocols. I don't think
that is the intention. To my understanding this effort could more clearly be
defined as defining one or two application protocol that fulfills the
WebTransport API and is using QUIC or HTTP/3. If the charter can be clarified
to not include transport protocol work and which existing transport protocols
or other protocols the solution will build on it would be much better and well
defined work. I also think creating mappings to other transport protocols
should require rechartering to enable a wider discussion of such choices.

Secondly:

The group will also coordinate with related working groups within the IETF,
such as QUIC and HTTPBIS, as appropriate.

With the current state of QUIC developement and HTTP/3 mapping definition, i.e.
still working on the initial version, I would like to have a more firm wording
that the WebTrans WG will actually have to take any requests for extensions of
HTTP/3 and QUIC to the relevant WG.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I also would appreciate if someone can clarify what stage of formality the
Web-Transport API has been adopted in W3C and is being worked on. Trying to
find anything about which group it belongs to on the W3C page didn't give me
any information. All I found is that there have been a workshop on game
communication where this was discussed and raised in some discussions.

Having lived through the WebRTC / RTCWeb interactions it would good to know
more how the interaction between the bodies are intended to work. Especially as
changes to the API can have significant impact on what work needs to happen in
the IETF.

The current API draft does not include any discussion of priority. However
draft-vvv-webtrans-overview does mention priorities. As this API appears to
support multiple parallel transmissions and transfers I think at a minimal a
sender transport protocol scheduling or HTTP/3 priority  would be likely to be
part of the work. I also have to ask if this is likely to attempted to be
mapped also towards the network level, for example DSCPs? If any such work is
expected and intended I think that needs to be raised. Otherwise I would assume
that at most what this work will be to use the undefined APIs to HTTP/3 and
QUIC to influence those protocol to perform stream priorities.