IETF MOQ WG: PR #1770 - changes to PUBLISHER_PRIORITY

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: PR #1770 - changes to PUBLISHER_PRIORITY
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: PR #1770 - changes to PUBLISHER_PRIORITY
• Author: Alan Frindell
• Published: 2026-08-26T15:34:49.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Alan Frindell posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on August 26, 2026. To clarify the properties of the proposal in 1770 - it can save at most one byte per datagram or subgroup -- the priority byte. I agree…

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

To clarify the properties of the proposal in 1770 - it can save at most one byte per datagram or subgroup -- the priority byte. I agree there's probably a use case to save this byte. Everyone who's

Plain-Text Body

To clarify the properties of the proposal in 1770 - it can save at most one byte per datagram or subgroup -- the priority byte.

I agree there's probably a use case to save this byte. Everyone who's expressed interest has made it clear that perfect fidelity is not a requirement.

The sentiment from the interim, which somewhat surprised me, is that few people in the working group (zero in the interim) found the savings compelling enough to justify the suggested machinery. I wonder if adding a SETUP option that allows the receiver to opt in would help address the concerns? Or we could take it a step farther and define it in an extension document, but I think the core changes in 1770 (moving Default Publisher Priority back from a property to a param, and relaxing malformed track rules around priority) need to happen in the base draft regardless.

Thanks

-Alan

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 10:30 AM Cullen Fluffy Jennings fluffy@iii.ca wrote: