Original text:
This document describes use cases and requirements that guide the specification of a simple, low-latency media delivery solution for ingest and distribution MOQ-charter, using either the QUIC protocol <del> RFC9000 or WebTransport WebTrans-charter. </del>  1.1. <del> This version of the document is intended to provide the MOQ working group with a starting point for work on the "Use Cases and Requirements document" milestone.  The update implements the work plan described in MOQ-ucr.  The authors intend to request MOQ working group adoption after IETF 115, so the working group can begin to focus on these topics in earnest. </del>  2.

Reviewer comments:
During the , NAME asked I answered (even though I'm not a MOQ chair), , but it's worth noting that this question has come up more than once during MOQ meetings, so it seems useful to add a short summary to the draft, in order to make sure we all have the same understanding. If I get this wrong, NAME and NAME can correct me, of course. :innocent:
Ta Hi, Lucas, I'm not a MOQ chair, but I can talk about history on one point. intentional, and (IIRC) derived from URL, which says, While writing down such things as requirements and use cases help to get a common understanding (and often common language) between participants in the working group, support documentation doesn’t always have a high archival value. Under most circumstances, the IESG encourages the community to consider alternate mechanisms for publishing this content, such as on a working group wiki, in an informational appendix of a solution document, or simply as an expired draft. My personal opinion is that we haven't spent enough time discussing use cases and requirements to have a good sense of the archival value of this documentation. If we did a good job on them, and kept them roughly up to date with solution drafts, the documentation may be worth publishing, but my understanding of the IESG statement is that no AD will ever ask the working group when these drafts will be submitted for publication as IETF-stream RFCs. And now, I'll let Alan and Ted give us the real answer. Best, Spencer >
Hi MoQ, I think this document is suitable candidate for adoption. It's not perfect and needs further development but that is sort of the point of adopting it. I note that the WG has a milestone of "WG adoption of Use Cases and Requirements document for Media Delivery over QUIC". If we dont adopt this document now, when and how would we axpext that milestone to be achieved? As a point of administration, I don't see a corresponding milestone for submission of a document to the IESG. Can I ask the chairs to clarify if the intention is to adopt and develop a draft but not seek taking it through to an RFC? Cheers Lucas This isn't as odd as it might sound. The MASQUE WG did something similar to help make progress on the protocol spec for IP tunnelling. So I would appreciate clarification here.

Revised text:
This document describes use cases and requirements that guide the specification of a simple, low-latency media delivery solution for ingest and distribution MOQ-charter, using either the QUIC protocol  <ins> RFC9000 or WebTransport WebTrans-charter as transport protocols. </ins> 1.1.  <ins> When adopted, this document is intended to capture use cases that are in scope for work on the MOQ protocol MOQ-charter, and requirements that arise from these use cases. As of this writing, the authors have not planned to request publication on this document, based on our understanding of the IESG's statement on "Support Documents in IETF Working Groups" IESG- sdwg, which says (among other things): It seems reasonable for the working group to improve this document, and then consider whether the result justifies publication as a part of the RFC archival document series. </ins> 2.