IETF MOQ WG: Support for Track Filters and Top-N

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: Support for Track Filters and Top-N
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: Support for Track Filters and Top-N
• Author: Magnus Westerlund
• Published: 2026-05-27T09:55:46.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Magnus Westerlund posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on May 27, 2026. WG, These last two week have not resulted in any significant shift in the situation for Track Filters with Top-N. There is clearly no conse…

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

WG, These last two week have not resulted in any significant shift in the situation for Track Filters with Top-N. There is clearly no consensus to include this functionality directly in MOQT at this time. We recognize that there is significant support behind having this functionality but also concerns and opposition.…

Plain-Text Body

WG,

These last two week have not resulted in any significant shift in the situation for Track Filters with Top-N. There is clearly no consensus to include this functionality directly in MOQT at this time. We recognize that there is significant support behind having this functionality but also concerns and opposition. Thus, the chairs think the best way forward here is that continued work around Track filters and Top-N functionality is progressed as an extension documented in its own internet draft. Adoption and potential future merging into MOQT will be taken based on addressing issues, and if maturity has been reached in time.

Magnus Westerlund MOQ Chair

From: Magnus Westerlund magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2026 at 13:42 To: MOQ Mailing List moq@ietf.org Subject: Support for Track Filters and Top-N

WG,

In yesterday�s meeting we discussed Fitlers (https://github.com/moq-wg/moq-transport/pull/1518) and the second poll indicated that there are both numerous support to include top-n track filters as well as equal amounts of opposition (7 vs 7). This leads me to see the need for some more discussion here. There was also an aspect that brought up, namely the track filters without Top-N functionality for SUBSCRIBE_NAMESPACE request. I don�t feel we got to the bottom if it is only the TOP-N functionality that people have problems or if there are concerns with Track filters without Top-N functionality.

I would like to encourage some continued discussion of the concerns here. As part of this discussion do please consider all of the following:

Fulfilling the use cases that the WG have been chartered to support * Impact on timeline for MOQT and if that is a concern * Security impact * Would there be impact in the splitting the filters into one MOQT core functionality and an extension

I would appreciate if you answer the following two questions from your perspective.

Do you support including track filters without Top-N functionality in the MOQT specification?

Do you support including track filters with Top-N functionality in the MOQT specification?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund MOQ Chair