Original text:
WebTransport.  Both provide streams and datagrams with similar semantics (see I-D.ietf-webtrans-overview); thus, the main difference lies in how the servers are identified and how the connection is <del> established.  There is no definition of the protocol over other transports, such as TCP, and applications using MoQ might need to fallback to another protocol when QUIC or WebTransport aren't available. </del>  3.1.1.

Reviewer comments:
To allow subscribers to indicate that no new subscriptions will be routed to the publisher for a given namespace. Happy to bikeshed on the name and whether we really need another frame for this.
The problem is not possible for the subscriber to reject an ANNOUNCE afterwards. This would be very useful, for example to inform a publisher that no more subscriptions will be routed to them for whatever reason. Examples: The auth parameter in ANNOUNCE has expired. Another publisher has sent an overriding ANNOUNCE (reconnect?) The broadcast has been closed remotely, ex. some moderation tool. Without this message, the only recourse for the subscriber is to close the connection. This won't work if multiple ANNOUNCE messages are pooled over the same connection, nor is it clean.
I propose two options: can be sent after . We add and to mirror . I personally hate 3 separate messages for a subscriber to close an announce, or a publisher to close a subscription. See
very trivial bikeshed comment ... I would prefer to call it something other RESET ( and also other places we use RESET ). I get the TCP analogy but I think that is the wrong way to think about this. I would prefer something like REVOKE.
how about ANNOUNCE_CANCEL to cancel an open announce ?
Conclusion is that we do need to add a new frame to end an ANNOUNCE. Additionally, there was a principle stated that we should not rely on closing the session as the typical or optimal way to close state and close either an ANNOUNCE or SUBSCRIBE.
On the call today, people tend to prefer ANNOUNCECLOSE over ANNOUNCECANCEL as a name. They also prefer merging SUBSCRIBERESET and SUBSCRIBEFIN into a single message, possibly SUBSCRIBE_CLOSE.
On an editorial note, it'd be nice to have subsections for publisher/subscriber to make it clearer to the reader.
If we're going to combine and , then we should just combine and now. My desire is to have four messages: publisher create: ANNOUNCE publisher close: UNANNOUNCE subscriber accept: ANNOUNCEOK subscriber close: ANNOUNCESTOP The same goes for subscriptions: subscriber create: SUBSCRIBE subscriber close: UNSUBSCRIBE publisher accept: SUBSCRIBEOK publisher close: SUBSCRIBESTOP

Revised text:
WebTransport.  Both provide streams and datagrams with similar semantics (see I-D.ietf-webtrans-overview); thus, the main difference lies in how the servers are identified and how the connection is  <ins> established.  When using QUIC, datagrams MUST be supported via the [QUIC-DATAGRAM] extension, which is already a requirement for WebTransport over HTTP/3. There is no definition of the protocol over other transports, such as TCP, and applications using MoQ might need to fallback to another protocol when QUIC or WebTransport aren't available. </ins> 3.1.1.