IETF MOQ WG: TImestamp Draft

Message Snapshot

• List: moq@ietf.org
• Thread subject: TImestamp Draft
• Message subject: [Moq] Re: TImestamp Draft
• Author: Luke Curley
• Published: 2026-10-06T19:32:19.000Z
• Source tag: ietf-mailing-list
• Message URL: Open in IETF Mail Archive

Summary

Luke Curley posted to the MOQ working group mailing list on October 6, 2026. Thanks Alan. I've been using timestamps for a few months now and think it's a significant upgrade to the protocol.

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

Thanks Alan. I've been using timestamps for a few months now and think it's a significant upgrade to the protocol.

Plain-Text Body

Thanks Alan.

I've been using timestamps for a few months now and think it's a significant upgrade to the protocol.

A subscriber can say "give me anything newer than 3s" instead of messing around with timelines or fixed group intervals. A generic relay can use timestamps to make better caching and delivery decisions.

I still use group IDs for identity, but honestly, maybe timestamps are the way to go. FETCH start=30s end=60s replaces much of the need for timelines.

Also, I've removed DURATION from my extension because it adds a frame of latency (I know right). I'm instead using a timestamped empty frame at the end of each video group, to avoid a dependency on group N+1 and to support discontinuities.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2026, 9:31 AM Alan Frindell afrind=40meta.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote: