Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Additional use case - "peer to peer, from 1-1 to 1-N, including peers acting as relays" #104

Open
SpencerDawkins opened this issue Jun 7, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
IETF 118 Target PR text for IETF 118 NextInterim Target PR text for next interim use case Impacts Use Cases section

Comments

@SpencerDawkins
Copy link
Collaborator

From @huitema, in the 7 June virtual interim meeting:

One specific use case I would like to see is "peer-to-peer", from 1-1 to 1-N, including peers acting as relays for other peers.

@SpencerDawkins SpencerDawkins added the use case Impacts Use Cases section label Jun 7, 2023
@SpencerDawkins
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm thinking that "peer-to-peer" could be at the QUIC layer (as in #103) or at the MOQ/application layer. If it's at the QUIC layer, the caveats in #103 would also apply, but if it's at the MOQ/application layer, that's a different story.

@SpencerDawkins SpencerDawkins self-assigned this Sep 19, 2023
@SpencerDawkins
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I had noted previously that "p2p relay" could happen at either the QUIC level or the MOQ (now MOQT) level. I was wrong about that - if the relay is doing anything more than just shoveling an unterminated QUIC connection in both directions, the MOQT level has to be involved. Accordingly, this is conflating "p2p QUIC" and "p2p MOQT", and at least at the Use Case level, shouldn't be folded in with our questions about the use of p2p QUIC in #103..

I'll flag this as Priority for Discussion, since we have an interim next week.

@SpencerDawkins SpencerDawkins added the Priority for discussion Requesting agenda time for this issue at next meeting label Sep 28, 2023
@SpencerDawkins SpencerDawkins removed the Priority for discussion Requesting agenda time for this issue at next meeting label Oct 17, 2023
@SpencerDawkins
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'll flag this as Priority for Discussion, since we have an interim next week.

@SpencerDawkins didn't get guidance on this from the interim, but @fiestajetsam thinks he can handle this issue.

@SpencerDawkins SpencerDawkins added the IETF 118 Target PR text for IETF 118 label Oct 17, 2023
@SpencerDawkins SpencerDawkins added the NextInterim Target PR text for next interim label Jan 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
IETF 118 Target PR text for IETF 118 NextInterim Target PR text for next interim use case Impacts Use Cases section
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants