Hi, On 2020-10-20, at 16:13, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> wrote: > I though we are at the step where we collect use cases in order to understand > if there is a need and support for MP support in QUIC
exactly. But in order to have a discussion on this, we need to hear from the proponents of those use cases what functionality they are missing in QUICv1. > (rather than going into requirement for how multipath support would be > realized). But requirements are not about the "how" - that was exactly Lucas' point. Requirements are about "what". So statements along the lines of "my use case requires the ability to fail over a connection to a different path", etc. would be informative. Saying "my use case requires draft-deconinck" less so (for example). > We could also talk more about requirement but I think that’s better for a > later discussion and would maybe need more than 5 minutes. I'd hope not? Because if there is a long shopping list of requirements for new QUIC functionality to support a particular use case, that'd look to some as a pretty convincing case that maybe QUIC isn't really a suitable starting technology. Thanks, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
