Re: [Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols

I support this consensus.

I do have concerns about the complexity of different types of pooling, but
I'm sure we'll discuss those in the future.

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:26 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi WebTransport enthusiasts,
>
> Today we had an interim of the IETF WEBTRANS WG,
> where we reached consensus in the (virtual) room on
> the following questions:
>
> Question 1: number of protocols
>     Should the working group adopt only one UDP-based transport?
>     1A: only one transport (QUIC or HTTP/3)
>     1B: multiple transports (QUIC and HTTP/3)
>
> The consensus was option 1A.
>
> Additionally, we noted that this does not preclude us from
> building a second protocol at a later date if new information
> emerges.
>
> Question 2: UDP-based protocols
>     Which UDP-based option should we adopt as a starting
>     point for WebTransport protocol?
>     2A: WebTransport over HTTP/3
>     2B: WebTransport over QUIC directly (separate ALPN)
>
> The consensus was option 2A.
>
> Additionally, we discussed pooling and decided that we would
> not allow pooling in WebTransport over HTTP/3 for now, due
> to the complexities of pooling.
>
> We'd like to confirm this consensus on the list. If you disagree
> with these points, please reply on the list. If you do so, please
> state how strongly you feel - whether you are expressing a
> preference, or an imperative. Please also provide as much
> detail as possible to explain your position. Please also respond
> if you support this consensus - a simple "I support this consensus"
> email to the list would be helpful.
>
> We'll be running this consensus call for two weeks, please reply
> before 2021-01-26, the chairs will determine consensus on that date.
>
> Thanks,
> David
> --
> Webtransport mailing list
> Webtransport@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>