moqtail TimeTravel
moqtailtimetravel.moqtail.dev:4445
A deployment of MOQtail. Everything below was measured on this deployment, at whatever version and configuration it was running — it is not a measurement of that codebase. About this endpoint
At a glance
- Identifies itself as
- did not say
- Protocols accepted
- h3
- Media delivery
- namespace accepted
- Violations recorded
- 1
Certificate
- Subject
- CN=*.moqtail.dev
- Issuer
- C=US, O=Let's Encrypt, CN=YR2
- Valid until
- 2026-10-09 25 days left
- Trust
- publicly-trusted
- Verification
- Completed with the certificate verified
Control messages
Which control messages this endpoint answered, per draft. An error reply is still an answer — ok and err are both support; what is recorded as missing is a message that got no answer at all. A dash is neither: it means the exchange ended on our side, so nothing about this endpoint was measured there.
| Draft | SUBSCRIBE | FETCH | TRACK_STATUS | SUBSCRIBE_NAMESPACE | PUBLISH_NAMESPACE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 WT | ✓ err | ✓ err | ✗ | · | · |
Media delivery
One publisher and two subscribers, to see whether an object published through this endpoint reaches a client that asked for it.
waiting to be asked for the track: endpoint error: request ID error: request ID 125 exceeds max 100
Specification violations
endpoint error: request ID error: request ID 125 exceeds max 100
What the specification requires
draft-11 Section 8.5: "If a Request ID equal or larger than this is received by the endpoint that sent the MAX_REQUEST_ID in any request message (ANNOUNCE, FETCH, SUBSCRIBE, SUBSCRIBE_ANNOUNCES or TRACK_STATUS_REQUEST), the endpoint MUST close the session with an error of 'Too Many Requests'."
Setup parameters
What this endpoint sent back in its setup response, per draft. A parameter with no name is a code point the negotiated draft does not define.
draft 11 · WT
- 0x02 max_request_id = 2305843009213694000
Notes
- — the peer is up but refused the offered protocols on at least one transport
Is this your relay?
If something here is wrong, tell us — we keep what each result rests on, so a disputed one gets re-read rather than re-argued. We can also run this against endpoints that are not public.