Hi, On 2021-1-28, at 21:30, Roberto Peon <[email protected]> wrote: > What would your answer be on where partially-reliable HTTP work would be > homed (where it mostly requires QUIC changes, and may require some HTTP > changes)?
without having discussed this with my co-chairs: The H3 changes should live in the HTTP WG. If partially-reliable HTTP also needs a new QUIC extension, the new charter envisions two options: One would be to do the QUIC extension in the HTTP WG as well, with some sort of frequent collaboration/review with the QUIC WG. This would probably the preferred approach if that QUIC extension is really only applicable to partially-reliable HTTP. If however the QUIC extension to support partially-reliable HTTP has broader applicability to other applications, i.e., establishes something like a generic partially-reliable QUIC transport service, that'd argue for doing this work in the QUIC WG instead, and collaborate with HTTP to make sure their needs are met. Does this make sense? Does the proposed charter text read that way to you? Thanks, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
