Requirements Requirements Requirements #90
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This includes a section rename. I think this needs to eventually be covered within the working group, as I foresee analysis of the security and trust models that may arise from later work describe this as something that is required - in existing protocols we have fairly primitive things in place - RTMP has access keys, HTTP based protocols use a wide variety of methods.
I'm not sure consensus has been finalised about which means of encapsulation should be required; for now saying that if the WG is going to use an existing format, we should have agility within the protocol.
I think a better way of proposing this issue is one of a trade-off between guarantee of delivery, and of delay as receivers may drop stuff and not use media if it either never arrives or because it arrived too late. This kind of phrasing should also clear up a discussion around "stream vs datagram" because the requirements defined here wil largely determine what types are used - streams for reliable in order, datagram for lossy out-of-order.
This has been moved up since it applies to both producing and receiving.
SpencerDawkins
requested changes
Mar 10, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@fiestajetsam - I had two or three nits, but on the whole, this looks eminently mergeable and submittable to me, as -04. Does it look that way to you?
This really can be addressed via authentication, and through the data model used to represent media. This is further complicated by providers which may have differing sales models.
Put as a higher level concept, but ties together hopefully a lot of other discussions.
|
I've done enough clearing up, however there is a few points outstanding that need attention later. I'll leave this open a bit, if you get time to look at it later your feedback would be appreciated, otherwise I'll merge and push a new version out Monday. |
This gets around the word "raw QUIC" with hopefully some better language.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is the start (and bulk) of the requirements being put onto the table. Lot of commit messages provide context and justification as to why. Further commits will be added in the coming days, but earlier feedback would be appreciated.