Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Updated spinbit text (#2564)

Marcus Ihlar <> Tue, 09 April 2019 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3230A120440 for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 hXgg1tOIrO5B for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1064120404 for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=NeD0wKnkIDjktNC+KHAmekDya94=; b=B3tQgFhPpKcV8Xxp wnxX4Xy9S00WlIH9s4EU/CsxZDDRYStR/5Q7xtEjdfmVqLqh11V8hgaVX+vKov9d lrcyDf++A5dfsXo62unTLCUK1knHh1YKRDwB6OGsZJ9AAX47d7aVTXnQMzSuvmfl R3vNKnQLinpYuDG0acI/nRHT+RQ=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0990p1las1-28311-5CACB5CB-15 2019-04-09 15:10:03.300683991 +0000 UTC m=+52010.899946540
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id grc3BrYHRdGMRunKq-TvMQ for <>; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:10:03.263 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA1438007D for <>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:10:04 +0000
From: Marcus Ihlar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2564/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Updated spinbit text (#2564)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cacb5cb2da5b_55983fb766cd45bc177063"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ihlar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3llVJRePtcX5mjjQWNkRbIpe64t+0yCFzRcY r0yjjU4nCG0E4N7LoWHF9UC+gywuzQ3e9eX1iOi9sMH315yr9PFbxJ1IyAC6It0JmA1bAlVCZ9Sx9J CInURUdNDvXgU68wz8FJ4dV8mVvpZZj72tiyFdnneq0cKTLPml6WWi/Jvix2S/wj+3xqHliUzqtzs9 o=
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:10:18 -0000

ihlar commented on this pull request.

> +is available after version negotiation and connection establishment are
+completed. On-path measurement and use of the latency spin bit is further
+discussed in {{QUIC-MANAGEABILITY}}.
+The spin bit is an OPTIONAL feature of QUIC. A QUIC stack that chooses to
+support the spin bit MUST implement it as specified in this document.
+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 on a randomly chosen fraction of connections. 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 should be externally
+unpredictable but consistent for any given combination of source and destination
+address and port. The selection process performed at the beginning of the

> > I'm fine with simply stating that spinning is disabled for 1/8th of connections.
> I know why it is there, but does the text have any motivation for having this 1/8 rule?
Good point, could add something like this:
"... The random selection process SHOULD be designed such that on average the spin bit is disabled for at least one eighth of connections. Disabling the spin bit for a large enough fraction of connections makes it difficult for an observer to distinguish between connections that disable the spin bit explicitly or by random selection. "

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