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

[mirjak <[e-mail]>]

My understanding was always that the plan was to merge this into the transport doc and never that the the spin-exp is meant to be published as an own doc. The chairs only hold us at some point to create an own doc (instead of trying to get an PR up to date) such that it is easier to people to experiment until we have a final decision and merge it in.

We even had a hum on this in Bangkok:

6. To include the spin bit in the specification, as laid out here. Some decisions can still be made.

Yes: Strong hum (4-5 hums for inclusion, no against)

No: Medium-Strong hum (less)

I asked at the end of the session if we are ready to merge and got a yes. I don't know what this discussion is about because we really have already clear consensus here. I will close the issue.

-- 
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-457135370