Code change:
4.3. <ins> Finally, the "On-Demand" use cases described in this section do not have a tight linkage between ingest and streaming, allowing significant transcoding, processing, insertion of video clips in a news article, etc.  The latency constraints for the use cases in this section may be dominated by the time required for whatever actions are required before media are available for streaming. </ins> 4.3.1. *Senders/Receivers*: One to Many *Bi-directional*: No *Latency*: On Demand Where media is ingested and processed for a system to later serve it <del> to clients as on-demand media.  This may be media captured from live output or provided as a pre-recorded source, and may optionally be transcoded upon ingest. </del> <ins> to clients as on-demand media.  This media provided from a pre- recorded source, or captured from live output, but in either case, this media is not immediately passed to viewers, but is stored for "on-demand" retrieval, and may be transcoded upon ingest. </ins> 4.3.2.

Related discussion:
text: From NAME
NAME and NAME - I agree with Magnus in his email (cut and pasted in the description), where he said "what about RMTP and SRT?", but I'm thinking that since we already have a "Why QUIC?" section, we should probably have a "Why NOT other protocols" section, rather than trying to talk about that in (what was) Section 6.1. That could also conveniently map into saying why we're not looking at "Interactive Media" in this document (and, transitively, in the BOF), and why we're not looking at "On Demand" (Media) in this document (and in the BOF). Please let me know if this is a BAD idea soon (I'm typing PRs).
NAME for media ingest, Magnus has a good point about covering not just HLS and DASH, but also making (even brief) reference to non-segmented protocols like RTMP and SRT (but really, this can be expanded to RIST, ZiXi, etc etc etc). This can just be a sentence or two; I'm happy to write it.
NAME - I had a complicated day yesterday, which became less complicated last night, so I'm not coherent enough to type text. I'll see what I can do in the next couple of hours, and if I can include these NAME suggestions.
The current definition of latency targets in the draft is based on specific numeric ranges. Those do make sense (since they ultimately come from use case requirements), but I believe we should focus more on what consequences those have for the protocol design. Reflecting on our experience with QUIC used for live video vs QUIC used for video conferencing, my proposed definition of the latency target for live video would be "latency an order of magnitude higher than one RTT". Two major examples of why this is important: When the target latency is on the order of one RTT, it makes sense to use FEC and codec-level packet loss concealment. When the target latency is in the range of many, many RTTs, selectively retransmitting only lost packets is almost always better than FEC. When the target latency is on the order of one RTT, it is impossible to use congestion control schemes like BBR, since BBR has probing mechanisms that rely on temporarily inducing delay and amortizing the consequences of that over multiple RTTs.