IETF MOQ WG: Joining FETCH Survey

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: Joining FETCH Survey
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: Joining FETCH Survey
• Author: Alan Frindell
• Published: 2026-05-15T17:57:29.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Alan Frindell posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on May 15, 2026. Victor, it would be good to get more input from you on question 2? Do you think the shape of an improved solution is a unified control plane bu…

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

Victor, it would be good to get more input from you on question 2? Do you think the shape of an improved solution is a unified control plane but keep

Plain-Text Body

Victor,

it would be good to get more input from you on question 2? Do you think the shape of an improved solution is a unified control plane but keep separate data planes, unified control plane and unified current group data plane, or unified control and data planes further back than current?

For question 4, I was referring to something closer to FETCH style FC, where the subscriber can influence/control the rate at which past data is sent by the publisher. I'm not sure if that helps you answer in more detail. Your reference "for the current group" makes me think that using what you call "subscribe style flow control" for earlier groups is a no-go, meaning I interpret your answers as 4.1 = N, 4.2 = Y.

Achieving consensus on the MUST versus MUST NOT fill may prove very difficult, since I see both opinions coming back. Can you elaborate on "the edge cases will cause this to collapse."

Thanks

-Alan

On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 4:53 AM Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv= 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: