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

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

So, to be clear, the document split is an entirely editorial decision;
let's not conflate that with discussions about whether spin is PS or not.
Of course, if spin is not PS, then the answer is clear, but even if spin is
PS, whether it remains in a separate document or not is still an editorial
discussion.

I'm happy to have this discussion in Tokyo, but we need to clearly separate
the two discussions.

Please note that the recovery draft is standards track, but it is a
separate document.  Being in a separate document is meaningful for things
that can modularly be separated, esp since the transport document is
already quite long at the moment.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:30 AM hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:18 AM Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure if "including spin-bit in the specification" means
> including
> > it in the transport draft, considering the fact that we already have
> > multiple documents that specify the QUIC protocol: invariants, transport,
> > TLS, recovery. Having another document seems to be a natural way of
> > integrating a specific feature.
> >
> > Among the documents, I think it might be natural to assume that the
> > transport document would have the shortest lifetime, while there is fair
> > chance that TLS and recovery documents will be reused in QUIC v2. I'd
> also
> > assume the spin-bit draft to have a longer lifetime, because I do not
> think
> > we want to change the definition of the spin bits for each QUIC version.
> >
> > That seems to be one reason to prefer having spin bit as a separate draft
> > regardless of the status of the document. Is there a specific reason to
> > incorporate the spin-bit specification into the transport draft?
> >
> The transport draft is the logical place to say that the bit is taken and
> to give a pointer to what it is taken for. I think keeping the normative
> text on how to exercise the bit in the transport draft is cleaner. It may
> change in some later version, but this is the v1 meaning of that bit and
> its states.
>
> It is not an invariant, in other words, but a v1 feature that may not be
> continued in later versions. That's not quite experimental in the usual
> sense--a change to the meaning would occur in later versions. (You could,
> of course, later have a security draft say that even v1 ought to refrain
> from spinning, should some issue occur, but that wouldn't change what
> spinning meant)
>
> Ted
>
>
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2369#issuecomment-457144113>,
> > or mute the thread
> > <
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVb5KjEzrC9dqRFyQi9wXsKCS6IRQD6ks5vGYh7gaJpZM4aQb9w
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2369#issuecomment-457305764>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKjg1DoiyxpWo39ZPTuM5ehu8LC7EZh6ks5vGfvFgaJpZM4aQb9w>
> .
>


-- 
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-457794896