IETF MOQ WG: Knowing the start of a Subgroup

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: Knowing the start of a Subgroup
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: Knowing the start of a Subgroup
• Author: Alan Frindell
• Published: 2026-04-29T22:35:09.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Alan Frindell posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on April 29, 2026. As the author of #1618, I liked #1608 better as well, and I did not hear a specific scenario that would break if that proposal went forward.…

Why It Matters

This message came from the public MOQ working group archive and captures active discussion, meeting coordination, or implementation feedback around Media over QUIC.

Message Excerpt

As the author of #1618, I liked #1608 better as well, and I did not hear a specific scenario that would break if that proposal went forward. It would remove an application surface that has existed since draft-06 --

Plain-Text Body

As the author of #1618, I liked #1608 better as well, and I did not hear a specific scenario that would break if that proposal went forward.

It would remove an application surface that has existed since draft-06 -- assigning semantic meaning to the subgroup ID, and decoupling the tiebreaker priority of a subgroup from its first-ever-published object ID -- but it's not clear to me why that's a problem. MOQT has many degrees of freedom so removing one is not by itself a bad thing.

objections. Can these folks provide examples of what would be broken by #1608?

Thanks

-Alan

On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 2:11 PM Ian Swett <ianswett= 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: