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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 3:42 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:

> My understanding is that Victor proposed a (separate) binding for H3 or
> QUIC + you say there should also be a binding for TCP (or I guess TLS over
> TCP). If that are the three option why not writing in the charter that the
> group works on either separate binding for these cases or one binding that
> might cover multiple of these protocols?
>

I don't understand what this means. My point is I *don't* think we should
do an H3 binding.

-Ekr


> Mirja
>
>
> > On 3. Feb 2020, at 12:02, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:57 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:52 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
> > > > > --
> > > > > Webtransport mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Webtransport mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>
>