Yup, that is what I was hoping to hear.
WFM!
-=R
On 1/29/21, 12:18 AM, "Lars Eggert" <[email protected]> wrote:
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
