Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify multiple transport streams for Subgroups #642

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jan 29, 2025
Merged

Conversation

ac-freeman
Copy link
Contributor

Clarify the case for multiple QUIC streams in the Subgroups intro. The current version reading "some cases" makes the use of multiple streams sound infrequent, and the relationship isn't made clear until a few paragraphs later.

Clarify the case for multiple QUIC streams in the Subgroups intro
Copy link
Collaborator

@afrind afrind left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this, I made a couple minor suggestions.

draft-ietf-moq-transport.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ac-freeman
Copy link
Contributor Author

The rest of that section was full of references to QUIC as well, so I cleaned those up.

@ac-freeman ac-freeman changed the title Clarify multiple QUIC streams for Subgroups Clarify multiple transport streams for Subgroups Dec 12, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@afrind afrind left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks fine, or we could say just 'stream' instead of 'transport stream' in some places.

have a dependency and priority relationship consistent with sharing a transport
stream. A Group will be delivered using at least as many transport streams as
there are Subgroups, typically with a one-to-one mapping between Subgroups
and streams.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should make it more stronger saying "There is one to one mapping between Subgroups and Streams"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's generally true, except the special cases mentioned below (if a stream is reset prematurely, or other upstream conditions). Maybe we could say that it is a one-to-one mapping "under normal operating conditions."

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added "and are sent on a single stream whenever possible.", which I think conveys what we intend?


When a Track's forwarding preference (see {{object-fields}}) is "Track" or
"Datagram", Objects are not sent in Subgroups, no Subgroup IDs are assigned, and the
description in the remainder of this section does not apply.

QUIC streams offer in-order reliable delivery and the ability to cancel sending
QUIC and WebTransport streams offer in-order reliable delivery and the ability to cancel sending
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wonder why we need to add the additional qualifier for WebTransport?

Copy link
Collaborator

@suhasHere suhasHere left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do see the intent on keeping the stream bit abstract. However, I wonder making it explicit, as QUIC Stream, was the right intent though

@ianswett ianswett added the Editorial The draft is difficult to understand on a specific point, or it is open to multiple interpretations. label Jan 8, 2025
have a dependency and priority relationship consistent with sharing a transport
stream and are sent on a single stream whenever possible. A Group is delivered
using at least as many transport streams as there are Subgroups,
typically with a one-to-one mapping between Subgroups and streams.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I get the intent here. But i feel its lacking the alternate case of when there can't be be 1-1 mapping. Some clarification text will helpful here

Copy link
Collaborator

@suhasHere suhasHere left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Few clarifications and it might be useful to define the term transport stream and say it can be either WebTransport or Raw QUIC stream.

@ianswett ianswett merged commit f968ee2 into moq-wg:main Jan 29, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Editorial The draft is difficult to understand on a specific point, or it is open to multiple interpretations.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants