Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Merge normative -spin-exp text into -transport (#2369)

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

In advance of the Tokyo meeting, I came in here to say what @hardie said. On review the std/exp question was pretty clearly answered in BKK.

I personally don't care deeply whether the normative bits of the spin bit live in -transport or in their own document, though I don't buy the arguments for doing so. Addressing @marten-seemann's point: yes, -transport is big (but, after the recent editorial rework, *much* easier to navigate, so there's that). #2364 seems to weigh in at ~2 old-style pages, so while all efforts to reduce document size are appreciated, I don't think not adding the spin bit generation language will make a material difference. Other strictly-optional features of the transport protocol are not separated out. For example, connection migration is strictly-speaking optional on the client side, and is far more complicated both technically and editorially, such that a separate document on connection migration might even make the entire set of final documents more usable. But nobody has yet suggested that (and, to make it very clear, I am not suggesting that either).

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2369#issuecomment-458105065