IETF MOQ WG: London Interim Preliminary Agenda

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: London Interim Preliminary Agenda
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: London Interim Preliminary Agenda
• Author: Alan Frindell
• Published: 2026-06-02T20:09:12.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Alan Frindell posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on June 2, 2026. I believe Mo pre-emptively requested agenda time prior to the consensus call on Object Range filters. I agree we should remove 0945-1000 Object…

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

I believe Mo pre-emptively requested agenda time prior to the consensus call on Object Range filters. I agree we should remove 0945-1000 Object Range Filters (Mo)

Plain-Text Body

I believe Mo pre-emptively requested agenda time prior to the consensus call on Object Range filters. I agree we should remove

0945-1000 Object Range Filters (Mo)

from the agenda. It's probably worthwhile keeping

1015-1020 Track Property Filters (Mo)

to help clarify the semantics, though 5 minutes is vanishingly small.

I'd like to propose we merge

1030-1045 Subscription Location Filters (Mo) and 1330-1350 Joining FETCH (Alan)

since they are related. I'll reach out to Mo to see if we can converge desired topics. Even though I'm sure the WG will do their homework, and discuss the new JFetch proposal asynchronously, 20 minutes (1330-1350) seems too-short anyways.

I think the "day 2" agenda needs reworking, since there's "DTS/SWITCH incorporated/not incorporated" options, but it seemed like DTS had more support behind it than SWITCH during the last interim.

I'd also like to prioritize getting as many core MOQT issues decided as possible, so hold the possibility of a day-2 rebash based on day-1 progress. I agree with Suhas that many of the ancillary drafts can be potentially offloaded if needed. Concurrent Subscribes has been on the list to discuss from the editors since IETF 125, I don't think we should push it off any longer.

For Top-N, I'd like the discussion to focus on what the extensibiity gaps are in the core draft that are blocking, given the consensus call is to move this to an extension for now. Note chairs: there's a 30 minute gap from 11:00-11:30 in the second day 2 proposal.

Thanks

-Alan

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 12:38 PM Suhas Nandakumar suhasietf@gmail.com wrote: