On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:54 PM David Schinazi <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm supportive of the overall direction of this rechartering, with some > concerns though: > > 1) multipath is not mentioned in this charter - based on the conversations > we've had over the past months, I think we should be explicit about whether > multipath is in or out of scope > > +1 I think it should be explicitly mentioned. I don't see why not? Behcet > 2) +1 to Ian and Dmitri's comments about mentioning current examples in a > way that seems to preclude other extensions, we could remove the examples > to help clarify > > 3) I was surprised by "Extensions intended for Standards Track need to > have general applicability to multiple application protocols." and I don't > think our charter should preclude these. We shouldn't ban standard-track > protocols that require a QUIC extension to function properly. Perhaps > another way we could phrase this would be to say that "The QUIC WG is only > chartered to work on extensions that have general applicability to multiple > application protocols. Extensions that are specific to an application > protocol should be defined in the WG responsible for that protocol, in > consultation with the QUIC WG." -- without stating anything about Standards > track. > > 4) It seems off to me to simultaneously declare HTTP/3 logging in-scope > and HTTP/3 out-of-scope. I think qlog is useful, but if we want to use it > outside of the QUIC transport protocol then maybe it should live in another > WG. > > 5) "Maintenance and evolution of the QUIC base specifications" isn't very > clear to me - does that mean that working on future versions of QUIC is in > or out of scope? > > David > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:00 PM Ian Swett <ianswett= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> In the past, I felt there was quite a bit of resistance to accepting new >> documents not explicitly listed in the charter, which makes me share some >> of Dmitri's concerns. >> >> Mentioning qlog specifically made me a bit nervous, because the other >> examples were worded broadly enough that they could encompass different >> drafts if needed. >> >> Minus that concern, LGTM. >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:48 PM Dmitri Tikhonov < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> OK, hopefully that's how it works out in the end. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - Dmitri. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 05:27:11PM +0000, Lucas Pardue wrote: >>> > Waiting for the new documents to get proposed and adopted, as a new >>> > precedent for future work in this area doesn't IMO help much. We >>> already >>> > have precedents, which I trust the WG to be capable of applying without >>> > being too literal. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Lucas >>> >>>
