Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option

[<[e-mail]>]

On 10/05/18 14:22, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
> 
> I'm less happy about the complexity implied:
> 
> - in any (non-VEC) implementation of a negotiated spin bit, the negotiation
> code will dwarf the code for the signal it's negotiating, which seems wrong.

The version negotiation code is a one-shot investment for all extensions. Not a 
single extra line when the set moves from {v1,v1s} to {v1,v1s,v1svv,v1sqr?...}.

> - if we decide to support other client behaviors for other measurement goals
> in the future, it pushes the complexity of deciding what to measure to the
> endpoints, as opposed to placing that complexity at the midpoint.
The one thing that pushes the burden onto the endpoints is not negotiation but 
enforcement. I don't think enforcement is a good idea, for this very reason. 
Since these extensions are only for observers and may easily be opted out by 
either endpoint, it makes sense to honor them in a best-effort way, no more.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.