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: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
• Published: 2026-05-04T17:36:20.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on May 4, 2026. If an app has no need for Subgroup ID semantic meaning, it can send an unlimited number of objects as separate streams using the same ID (…

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

If an app has no need for Subgroup ID semantic meaning, it can send an unlimited number of objects as separate streams using the same ID (e.g. 0) and reset-at. This seems really ugly, so I’d be willing to have a special header type for single-object stream if that is a strong use case. I agree with the comments in I#1…

Plain-Text Body

If an app has no need for Subgroup ID semantic meaning, it can send an unlimited number of objects as separate streams using the same ID (e.g. 0) and reset-at. This seems really ugly, so I’d be willing to have a special header type for single-object stream if that is a strong use case. I agree with the comments in I#1405 that this may be closer to datagram than stream conceptually, which may motivate a specific header type that merges the desired properties of datagram and stream.

If the stream-per-object case can be achieved without many subgroup IDs, then maybe a single byte is acceptable.

Thanks, Mo

---

From: Ian Swett ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 12:56:05 PM To: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) mzanaty@cisco.com Cc: Cullen Fluffy Jennings fluffy@iii.ca; Magnus Westerlund magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; MOQ Mailing List moq@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Moq] Re: Knowing the start of a Subgroup

I believe the concern with making Subgroup ID a single byte is if you wanted to do Object-per-Subgroup and couldn't or didn't want to use datagrams, you'd be limited to 256 Objects per Group.

Otherwise, making Subgroup ID a byte a very appealing change. Thinking along those lines is what caused me to file #1405https://github.com/moq-wg/moq-transport/issues/1405 (Single Object Subgroups don't need a Subgroup ID)

Ian