Re: Spin bit decision
Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 02 October 2018 16:42 UTC
Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82A7130E52 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mtM4FL2vMJ2Q for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi (emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0495B130DC8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.56]) by emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712BD40158; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:41:59 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from slate.eggert.org (pf.eggert.org [172.16.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BE7761C5EA; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:41:55 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Subject: Re: Spin bit decision
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <BB87D8D0-DA01-4C0F-B557-2A728BF19A64@trammell.ch>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:41:54 +0300
Cc: Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, "alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com" <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C9FE8E50-0214-41E0-B0FF-52EA4DF2B0DF@eggert.org>
References: <14531_1538460420_5BB30B04_14531_237_4_c0f3a391-9897-80b0-575b-aa73edad0d52@orange.com> <9A63F295-5DC5-4992-9A9C-A98F72C8430D@eggert.org> <22440_1538469028_5BB32CA4_22440_292_2_8e00a462-2bbf-acf0-1195-74269a0c2fbd@orange.com> <3E3DBC15-FE42-47CF-AF7A-1F2597ED2390@eggert.org> <HE1PR0701MB2393CDB16819A54B33D22417E2E80@HE1PR0701MB2393.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <BB87D8D0-DA01-4C0F-B557-2A728BF19A64@trammell.ch>
To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
X-MailScanner-ID: 2BE7761C5EA.A5C59
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/-1djTfmpiGacc0VOIc95Sv4-nLA>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:42:03 -0000
Hi, On 2018-10-2, at 17:45, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote: > > IMO (and this is an opinion; I don't think anyone will have enough data to answer this question for real before Bangkok), as you say one "hyperscalar" turning the spin bit on -- even probabalistically, e.g. as Apple did (still does?) during transition to ECN-by-default on the client side -- would provide more than enough signal on the paths between the access networks of its users (most of them) and the network(s) through which it provides its services. > > This would also be the case if one of the top-N CDNs and one major browser vendor did so (again, probabilistic activation suffices). The larger the set of the server networks implementing, the more coverage one would have for access and core network paths. thanks, this is helpful! Lars
- Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Nick Banks
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- RE: Spin bit decision Lucas Pardue
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- RE: Spin bit decision Lucas Pardue
- Re: Spin bit decision Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit decision Ted Hardie
- Re: Spin bit decision Ian Swett
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit decision Marten Seemann
- signaling that QUIC is QUIC was Re: Spin bit deci… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Marten Seemann
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit decision Kazuho Oku
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- RE: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Lucas Pardue
- Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit decision Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Mike Bishop
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marten Seemann
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- SV: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku