IETF MOQ WG: Consensus call on Object filters

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: Consensus call on Object filters
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: Consensus call on Object filters
• Author: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
• Published: 2026-05-23T01:38:12.000Z
• 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 23, 2026. Glad the text is clear. Should we still spend some dedicated time on this in London? Or should I release this slot? I suspect everyone ha…

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

Glad the text is clear. Should we still spend some dedicated time on this in London? Or should I release this slot? I suspect everyone has not fully reviewed, understood, and agreed to all these details. So I’m inclined to keep the slot, if only to agree on what we call this track property filter. The current PR calls…

Plain-Text Body

Glad the text is clear. Should we still spend some dedicated time on this in London? Or should I release this slot? I suspect everyone has not fully reviewed, understood, and agreed to all these details. So I’m inclined to keep the slot, if only to agree on what we call this track property filter. The current PR calls all Property Filters (for any track or object property) simply Range Filters, while Track Filter only refers to top N.

Thanks, Mo

---

From: Alan Frindell afrind=40meta.com@dmarc.ietf.org Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 8:48:57 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: Consensus call on Object filters

Thanks for setting me straight Mo. That’s clear enough and I missed it.

-Alan