IETF MOQ WG: Joining FETCH Replacement Proposal

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: Joining FETCH Replacement Proposal
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: Joining FETCH Replacement Proposal
• Author: Luke Curley
• Published: 2026-06-11T14:09:25.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Luke Curley posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on June 11, 2026. Hello, I was going to join remotely to voice my opinions but tired won. Serving the CurrentGroup via subscribe semantics is an improvement and t…

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

Hello, I was going to join remotely to voice my opinions but tired won. Serving the CurrentGroup via subscribe semantics is an improvement and this proposal is better than the status quo.

Plain-Text Body

Hello, I was going to join remotely to voice my opinions but tired won.

Serving the CurrentGroup via subscribe semantics is an improvement and this proposal is better than the status quo.

I'm still not sure why there's an insistence on serving "old" groups via fetch semantics. The subscription populating the relay cache is semi-ordered and semi-reliable, and forcing HoLB for new subscribers can only cause issues. Like what Mo said, the entire point of sub-groups, and even groups (priorities), is to receive them out of order.

IMO SUBSCRIBE should invoke semi-ordered and semi-reliable delivery, while FETCH should invoke ordered and reliable delivery. Mixing the two semantics for the first N groups of a subscription is just weird.

But whatever, we take the wins we can get. CurrentGroup being included in the SUBSCRIBE is important.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 11:36 PM Alan Frindell <afrind= 40meta.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: