Re: [Webtransport] Request for Feedback: Draft Charter proposal

Lucas said:

"With that in mind, how would you foresee the running code aspect of the
process. Would there be some opportunity to do interop such as at the
Hackathon?"

[BA] One can argue that the draft milestones are optimistic, given
experience.  So we can increase the timeline to better conform to reality.
>From the comments, it seems like the simplest work items (e.g. WebTransport
for QUIC) are likely to be implemented first; the HTTP-related items will
be likely to take longer. Having successful interop tests/Hackathon
experience will confirm that the specifications are sufficiently clear to
yield interoperable implementations.

Victor said:

"I also feel we should be somewhat more explicit about what points we
expect to coordinate with W3C (i.e. we should coordinate on requirements,
but not on protocol details)."

[BA] That is a good point.  The current Draft Charter does not include a
requirements document.  Would it make sense to add that as a work item?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 3:06 PM Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com> wrote:

> Hello Bernard,
>
> Thanks for the charter draft!
>
> I have a few suggestions:
>
>    1. I think in terms of milestones, we might want to put WebTransport
>    over QUIC earlier than WebTransport over HTTP/[23], since it's both simpler
>    in nature and is currently under active development in Chromium.
>    2. I'm not sure it would be wise to explicitly put WICG into the
>    charter, as WICG expects the specs to migrate elsewhere as soon as they
>    reach a certain level of maturity (so we'd need a recharter when that
>    happens, which I'd prefer to avoid).
>
> I also feel we should be somewhat more explicit about what points we
> expect to coordinate with W3C (i.e. we should coordinate on requirements,
> but not on protocol details).
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:35 PM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As many of you may have noticed, there will be a (non-WG forming)
>> WEBTRANS BOF at IETF 106:
>> https://trac.tools.ietf..org/bof/trac/
>> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/>
>>
>> With the IETF 106 schedule due to be finalized soon, we are working on a
>> draft agenda which we hope to post to this list sometime next week.
>>
>> While the upcoming IETF 106 BOF is non-WG forming, we have gotten some
>> feedback from the IESG  suggesting that we jumpstart discussion of a
>> potential WG charter.  So as to solicit feedback, we've put together an
>> early draft of a charter proposal, which is enclosed below.
>>
>> Please note that this proposal assumes that dependencies such as work on
>> QUIC datagrams (e.g. draft-pauly-quic-datagram and
>> draft-schinazi-quic-h3-datagram  ) will be handled elsewhere, such as in a
>> re-chartered QUIC WG.
>>
>> WebTransport (WEBTRANS)
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Charter
>>
>>>
>>> Chairs:
>>>      David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>      Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Applications and Real-Time Area Directors:
>>>      Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
>>>      Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
>>>      Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
>>>
>>> Applications and Real-Time Area Advisor:
>>>      Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
>>>
>>> Mailing Lists:
>>>      General Discussion: webtransport@ietf.org
>>>      To Subscribe:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>>>      Archive:
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webtransport/
>>>
>>> Description of Working Group:
>>>
>>> The WebTransport working group will define new protocols or
>>> protocol extensions in order to support the needs of the W3C
>>> WebTransport API <https://wicg.github.io/web-transport/>.
>>>
>>> These protocols will support:
>>>   * Reliable bidirectional and unidirectional communication
>>>     that provides greater efficiency than Websockets
>>>     (e.g. removal of head-of-line blocking).
>>>   * Unreliable datagram communication, functionality not
>>>     available in Websockets..
>>>   * Origin checks to allow supporting the Web's origin-based
>>>     security model.
>>>
>>> The WebTransport working group will define three variants:
>>>   * A protocol directly running over QUIC with its own ALPN.
>>>   * A protocol that runs multiplexed with HTTP/3.
>>>   * Fallback protocols that can be used when QUIC or UDP
>>>     is not available.
>>>
>>> The group will pay attention to security issues arising from
>>> the above scenarios so as to ensure against creation of new
>>> modes of attack, as well as to ensure that security issues
>>> addressed in the design of Websockets remain addressed
>>> in the new work.
>>>
>>> The group will coordinate with the W3C Web Incubation Community
>>> Group (WICG) with respect to the above deliverables to ensure the
>>> best possible match between the WebTransport protocol extensions
>>> and the W3C WebTransport API. The group will also coordinate with
>>> other working groups within the IETF (e.g. QUIC, HTTPBIS) as
>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> Goals and Milestones:
>>>
>>>   March 2020 - Adopt a draft on WebTransport over HTTP/3 as a WG work
>>> item
>>>   March 2020 - Adopt a draft on WebTransport over QUIC as a WG work item
>>>   March 2020 - Adopt a draft on HTTP/2 fallback mechanism as a WG work
>>> item
>>>   March 2020 - Adopt a draft on a QUIC fallback mechanism as a WG work
>>> item
>>>   September 2020  - Issue WG last call on WebTransport over HTTP/3
>>>   September 2020  - Issue WG last call on HTTP/2 fallback mechanism
>>>   November 2020   - Issue WG last call on WebTransport over QUIC
>>>   November 2020   - Issue WG last call for QUIC fallback mechanism
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Webtransport mailing list
>> Webtransport@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>>
>