Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Disabling Spin bit for what percentage of connections? (#3270)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 25 November 2019 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2305D12081C for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:10:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8mU92XEBVES for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03341200B4 for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:10:21 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574669421; bh=7TQuiP8+MPFltEHTIaIN+kc22EdXMhVIRvRzrQLs9MU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Z4ESw5IhLfgHUkvPr0XkoWAmyDBwUgSHxyguVR6Yh1WuLUykq0/QZZMEtM387MC+z +pyal0rqi4TLtWh34Io8rZX/HjgB4ooPWaqpljy4RRtWEvuTmCMZJ5ApYtRQHLPM1f 3t09nn1FHnrwGgrrz2wjM27IY+sJD1Mr86DMDbb4=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3270/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Disabling Spin bit for what percentage of connections? (#3270)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ddb8c6da8244_19223ff961ecd96c9324e7"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:10:24 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

> @@ -4331,11 +4331,10 @@ Each endpoint unilaterally decides if the spin bit is enabled or disabled for a
 connection. Implementations MUST allow administrators of clients and servers
 to disable the spin bit either globally or on a per-connection basis. Even when
 the spin bit is not disabled by the administrator, implementations MUST disable
-the spin bit for a given connection with a certain likelihood. The random
-selection process SHOULD be designed such that on average the spin bit is
-disabled for at least one eighth of network paths. The selection process
-performed at the beginning of the connection SHOULD be applied for all paths
-used by the connection.
+the spin bit for at least a sixteenth of connections with an expectation that
+the spin bit is disabled for at least one eighth of network paths. The selection

@martinthomson If we are to "ensure" that the spin bit signal would be disabled for approx. 1/8 of network paths, I think we need to require endpoints to select one in every 16 paths *at random*. Otherwise, the paths that would have the spin bit disabled could go below 1/8. For example, when there is only one client and one server talking to each other, and if both of them disable spin bit for every 16th connection they handle, then the spin bit would be enabled for only 1/16 of all the connections.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: