Re: Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion: and manufacturers ?

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 30 October 2018 10:27 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 7B3D7130DED for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:27:51 -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 Zlk1Nx9aaW9K for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi (emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B29B128DFD for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.56]) by emh02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EED202D0; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:27:47 +0200 (EET)
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 89ED361235D; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:27:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <3386479D-9FC1-4A2E-A8A3-1F2A4F247232@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B07A6608-CFA5-4FF2-B053-DB53945400FB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Subject: Re: Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion: and manufacturers ?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:27:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20130_1540891525_5BD82385_20130_144_8_5AE9CCAA1B4A2248AB61B4C7F0AD5FB93140A4EE@OPEXCLILM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
To: "<emile.stephan@orange.com>" <emile.stephan@orange.com>
References: <20130_1540891525_5BD82385_20130_144_8_5AE9CCAA1B4A2248AB61B4C7F0AD5FB93140A4EE@OPEXCLILM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-MailScanner-ID: 89ED361235D.A2594
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/675RHdOSmhoqrfrI94R4tuvJQsg>
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, 30 Oct 2018 10:28:02 -0000

Hi,

On 2018-10-30, at 11:25, emile.stephan@orange.com wrote:
> IMO manufacturers of any sort of devices (router, box, proxy, mobile equipment...) should start sharing their intends too.

certainly, there's no harm in that.

But since it's the QUIC clients that need to spin and the QUIC servers that need to echo, we're specifically interested in the level of implementation interest there.

Lars