RE: Spin bit decision

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

Not at all -- whether we'd like it to be widespread behavior is a separate question from whether it's a requirement to successfully interoperate.

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 3:13 PM
To: Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spin bit decision

On 10/02/18 18:50, Mike Bishop wrote:
> Given that the spin bit is not “actually required for interoperation,” 
> but is the very definition of “try to impose a particular method on 
> implementors,” I’d say that RFC 2119 imperatives are unwarranted.

My naive belief was that we were in the process of (1) deciding whether we'd like the spin bit to be widespread; and later, (2) how to get there given the fact that implementors are moderately only constrained by  RFCs.

But your statements above seem to indicate that (1)=NO.
Is this consensual already ? If yes, why are we discussing at all ?




_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.