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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Magnus, the charter has been updated.  Will you check whether -01 will
clear your BLOCK?

Thanks,
Barry

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:39 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>