Hey Florin, On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 02:07 Florin Baboescu, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lucas, > > > > There are currently three MPQUIC based proposals which are in discussion > with different variations in regard to what is transported and how it is > transported. This is why I’m not commiting to clearly indicating one mode > of transport or another. > > From my side we are happy in advancing the work in > draft-piraux-quic-tunnel and use it as base of our solution. > > > Nominating any draft as a solution is solutionizing. We've asked for clear requirements and non-requirements of the QUIC transport. The slides that Spencer submitted have use cases but no clear requirements. The reason this is important is because the IETF MASQUE WG is already working on tunneling with QUIC. We need to unpick the layers of overlap to understand what work the QUIC WG is being asked to consider taking on. Cheers Lucas > >
