Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

you'll have seen that we've set aside a lengthy slot on the agenda in order to finish the discussion on whether the spin bit (described in draft-ietf-quic-spin-exp) should be included in the first version of QUIC the IETF publishes, and if yes, what shape that inclusion would take.

Note that draft-ietf-quic-spin-exp describes what we commonly call the single-bit spin bit variant. We'd like to confirm that the discussion will be limited to that variant.

Next, we'd like to confirm that the WG believes that it is fit-for purpose, i.e., that if a sufficient number of bits were spinning, operators could obtain the information they need. This also includes confirmation that the privacy aspects of the spin bit proposal are understood and acceptable to the WG.

We'd specifically like to ask client and server implementors with projected sizable deployments to indicate whether they intent to implement and deploy, if the WG decided to include the spin-bit in the spec. We have seen one such statement on the list from Microsoft (thank you!) and would be interested to hear from others, either on the list or during the session in Bangkok.

Finally, if the WG has agreement to include the spin bit in the spec based on the information from and the discussion on the points above, we need to come to consensus on what shape such an inclusion of the spin bit would take, e.g., negotiated extension, conformance requirements (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) for clients and servers, etc.

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about this approach for structuring the discussion in Bangkok.

Lars and Mark