Subject: [Moq] Gathering prior work, use cases, requirements

From: James <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:12:42 +0200

Hello MoQ subscribers,

I have written up a brief summary of all the drafts I could find as previous work, and used that to cover what I think the common use cases and requirements we have in this space.

https://fiestajetsam.github.io/2021/08/22/quic-video.html

Feedback and discussion would be appreciated, particularly if there’s anything here I’ve missed or gotten wrong.

- J

---

From: "Ali C. Begen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 20:19:32 +0300

I am fine with listing and discussing the use cases but I fear a single
solution that will address all the use cases with vastly different nature
is almost impossible. IETF has a bunch of webrtc protocols for
"communication" applications (RTP/RTCP/SDP/SCTP). If one wants to use QUIC
beneath those, that is fine but is there a common interest for that in this
mailing list?

>From the meeting, I gather much of the interest here is in one-way media
(streaming) scenarios - low-latency live or on-demand. And there is the
ingest side and distribution side in that scenario with different
requirements.

If that is a valid observation, maybe we can establish that first? If it is
not, establishing that is also good :)

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:12 PM James <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello MoQ subscribers,
>
> I have written up a brief summary of all the drafts I could find as
> previous work, and used that to cover what I think the common use cases and
> requirements we have in this space.
>
> Feedback and discussion would be appreciated, particularly if there’s
> anything here I’ve missed or gotten wrong.
>
> - J
> --
> Moq mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/moq
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 07:21:01 -0500

James,

Thank you for a very helpful summary (one which I've already forwarded to
people outside IETF, so you know *I *thought it was helpful).

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 12:20 PM Ali C. Begen <ali.begen=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> If that is a valid observation, maybe we can establish that first? If it
> is not, establishing that is also good :)
>

I agree with Ali that we are likely to make more progress if we understand
what the goal of each proposal is, before attempting to group/clump them
and start building solutions and requesting chartered work in the IETF.

I think all of the general approaches we discussed in the side meeting are
worth pursuing in the IETF, and I don't want to cripple our ability to move
forward quickly by trying to agree on one approach that is (to quote a
sarcastic television commercial endorsement) "it's a toothpaste, AND a
furniture polish!". Especially in the IETF, that can be a time suck that
ends badly for everyone.

Best,

Spencer