Our proposal is that "Media Over QUIC" discussions focus first on the use cases described in lm-media, which are Live Media Ingest (lmingest), Syndication (lmsynd), and Streaming (lmstream).  Our <del> reasoning is provided in usecaseanalysis. 5.1. </del> <ins> reasoning for this suggestion follows. </ins> Each of the above use cases in overallusecases fit into one of three classifications of solutions. <del> The first group, in interact, covering gaming (gaming), screen sharing (remdesk), and general video conferencing (vidconf), are largely covered by WebRTC and related protocols today.  Whilst there may be benefit in these use cases having a QUIC based protocol it may be more appropriate given the size of existing deployments to extend the WebRTC protocol and specifications.  Such work could start in a QUIC specific forum, but would likely need to take place in rtcweb and the W3C. </del> <ins> 5.1. The first group, Interactive Media, as described in interact, and covering gaming (gaming), screen sharing (remdesk), and general video conferencing (vidconf), are largely covered by RTP, often in conjunction with WebRTC WebRTC, and related protocols today. Whilst there may be benefit in these use cases having a QUIC based protocol it may be more appropriate given the size of existing deployments to extend the RTP protocols and specifications. 5.2. </ins> The second group of classifications, in lm-media, covering Live Media Ingest (lmingest), Live Media Syndication (lmsynd), and Live Media <del> Streaming (lmstream) are likely the use cases likely to benefit most from this work.  Existing protocols used such as HLS RFC8216 and DASH </del> <ins> Streaming (lmstream) are likely the use cases that will benefit most from this work. Existing ingest and streaming protocols such as HLS RFC8216 and DASH </ins> DASH are reaching limits towards how low they can reduce latency in live streaming and for scenarios where low-bitrate audio streams are <del> used add a significant amount of overheads compared to the media bitstream. </del> <ins> used, these protocols add a significant amount of overhead compared to the media bitstream itself. For this reason, we suggest that work on "Media Over QUIC" protocols target these use cases at this time. 5.3. </ins> The third group, od-media, covering On-Demand Media Ingest (od- ingest) and On-Demand Media streaming (od-stream) is unlikely to <del> benefit from work in this space.  Without notable latency requirements, protocols such as HLS and DASH largely meet the needs of this use case. </del> <ins> benefit from work in this space.  Without the same "Live Media" latency requirements that would motivate deployment of new protocols, existing protocols such as HLS and DASH are probably "good enough" to meet the needs of these use cases. This does not mean that existing protocols in this space are perfect. Segmented protocols such as HLS and DASH were developed to overcome the deficiencies of TCP, as used in HTTP/1.1 RFC7230 and HTTP/2 RFC7540, and do not make full use of the possible congestion window along the path from sender to receiver.  Other protocols in this space have their own deficiencies.  For example, RTSP RFC7826 does not have easy ways to add support for new media codecs. Our expectation is that these use cases will not drive work in the "Media Over QUIC" space, but as new protocols come into being, they may very well be taken up for these use cases as well. </ins> 6.