Code change:
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.

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.