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

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 25 November 2019 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225BC120835 for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:41:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, 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 ol0mlfNyX9Af for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:41:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7DD61200E9 for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:41:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B482A0C3A for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:41:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574671317; bh=ERGMjSyMcTJaeNLMtGqisaypZ2g4tgOhBXas+gZA1U8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=x0lVsPHBPIODcHpAo4vjFAEdu+oN+QYZN2ocJIDGIV3IrJtMNWtuWr3PUCK6Owfc+ yiQpOCoLpxDZ61JkX+950441+6iVS89U0iLWiKCnRZ4xWuOLjMcUw7u3t0UfEJu2W9 3urqiUTaALa6OZDlBg7BgFw4zi4m2TdO7tVDe6Lg=
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:41:57 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <>
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_5ddb93d5c621_1fca3ff34eecd96c57372d"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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 08:41:59 -0000

martinthomson 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

Quite right.  

> endpoints MUST disable their use of the spin bit for a random selection of at least one in every 16 network paths, or for one in every 16 connection IDs. This ensures that the spin bit signal is disabled on approximately one in eight network paths.

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