Code change:
Behaviours around cache durations for each MoQ entity should be defined. <ins> 4.8.3. In case of congestion, the relay will use the priorities to selectively drop the "least important" objects: if congestion is noticed, the relay will drop first the lesser priority layer.  In our example, that would mean the objects marked at priority 6.  The relay will drop all objects marked at that priority, from the first dropped object to the end of the group. if congestion persists despite dropping a first layer, the relay will start dropping the next layer, in our example the objects marked at priority 5. if congestion still persist after dropping all but the highest priority layer, the relay will have to close the group, and start relaying the next group. When dropping objects within the same priority: higher object numbers in the same group, which are later in the group, are "less important" and more likely to be dropped than objects in the same group with a lower object number.  Objects in a previous group are "less important" than objects in the current group and MAY be dropped ahead of objects in the current group. The specification above assumes that the relay can detect the onset of congestion, and has a way to drop objects.  There are several ways to achieve that result, such as sending all objects of a group in a single QUIC stream and making explicit action at the time of relaying, or mapping separate priority layers into different QUIC streams and marking these streams with different priorities.  The exact solution will have to be defined in a draft that specifies transport priorities. 4.8.4. Web conferencing systems are used on networks with well over 20% packet loss and when this happens, it is often on connections with a relatively large round trip times.  In these situtation, forward error correction or redundant transmitions are used to provide a reasonable user experience.  Often video is turned off in.  There are multiple machine learning based audio codecs in development that targeting a 2 to 3 Kbps rate. This can result in scenarios where very small audio objects are sent at a rate of several hundreds packets per second with a high network loss rate. 4.8.5. In the streaming scenarios, there is an important emphasis on resynchronization, characterized by a short distance between "access points".  This can be used for features like fast-forward or rewinding, which are common in non-real-time streaming.  For real- time streaming experiences such as watching a sport event, frequent access points allow "channel surfers" to quickly join the broadcast and enjoy the experience.  The interval between these access points will often be just a few seconds. In video encoding, each access point is mapped to a fully encoded frame that can be used as reference for the "group of blocks".  The encoding of these reference frames is typically much larger than the differential encoding of the following frames.  This creates a peak of traffic at the beginning of the group.  This peak is much easier to absorb in streaming applications that tolerate higher latencies than interactive video conferences.  In practice, many real time conferences tend to use much longer groups, resulting in higher compression ratios and smoother bandwidth consumption along with a way to request the start of a new group when needed.  Other real time conferences tend to use very short groups and just wait for the next group when needed. Of course, having longer blocks create other issues.  Realtime conferences also need to accomodate the occasional occasional late comer, or the disconnected user who want to resynchronize after a network event.  This drives a need for synchronization "between access points".  For example, rather than waiting for 30 seconds before connecting, the user might quickly download the "key" frames of the past 30 seconds and replay them in order to "synchronize" the video decoder. </ins> 4.9. 4.9.1.

Related discussion:
text: Note - this is a rough draft, although I have done some edits while adding this material. I do have notes for to-dos, and I'm pretty sure I want to figure out how to do the diagrams in some way that will format with straight lines, for starters.
I'm happy to just merge this in now as is just to unblock other work and make progress, and make any adjustments later because there's nothing that stands out as controversial, NAME are you okay with this?
We have a plan on how to resolve our terminology migration for in this PR
Based on review comments from NAME on the mailing list .
Draft is in suhasHere/moq-drafts.
NAME - NAME and I are starting with the scenarios from URL
NAME - I think it would be good to close this issue when we have a reasonable plan for where the material from the scenarios draft goes, and then handle further changes via issues and PRs as usual. Does that make sense? NAME NAME and NAME - I wanted to let you know that NAME and I are (finally, finally!) merging text from the scenarios draft in the requirements draft, as NAME suggested. I think I have homes for almost all of the text from the requirements draft, but I do have some work to do, so that the material is in the right place, and that it flows with text from the previous version of the requirements draft. I am, of course, always interested in comments. And thank you each for the work you did on this material.
Awesome - let me know if something I can do to help
Thanks NAME .. look forward to the updates. +1 to NAME , please let me know if we can be of any help Here is my review. Firstly, I'd like to say that this document is badly needed. The requirements document doesn't get into the level of detail that this document does, and I think that this level of detail is important to make progress on the design. Terminology I think it would be useful to define some of the terminology, including terms like "track" and "media switch". Section 2.2 A few questions: Are the trackIDs "t1, t2, t3" separate MediaStreamTracks, or are they just multiple encodings of the same track?