Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC lacks on-path exposure of packet loss (#3189)

[Igor Lubashev <[e-mail]>]

@mnot, @larseggert I am sure this is not an easy call, and it is late in the process. While this is not a straightforward "draft has an interop [between QUIC implementations] problem" it is a potential "draft has an interop with Internet ops problem" issue. This could be a stretch of what interoperability 
impact means, or not; please use your best Hat of Wisdom here.

P.S. In the IETF105 timeframe, while the draft I was presenting was, indeed, not targeting QUIC WG specifically, I did ask for the consideration of the topic by QUIC WG: "if the WG is interested, we are happy to have a quick QUIC-specific presentation on this". But you are correct that I could had been much more forceful in the request. In any case, we [got a rejection](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/wsVao34--oHbH6Qtf9V0h8SVCSo) (and, as you said, we later [presented this in other WGs and held a side meeting](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/UMcte0FnHGUSHs7lnVpZ0tGX_Vw)).

-- 
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/3189#issuecomment-550134604