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

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