Re: Spin bit decision

<alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com> Tue, 02 October 2018 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com>
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 3CE961277BB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 06:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.291
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no 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 7Rv6_Zqa2UBZ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 06:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C48B127598 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 06:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.66]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42Pfbv3XGFz4x84; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:08:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42Pfbv2ZZrz8sY7; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:08:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.193.4.89] (10.168.234.6) by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.114.31.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:08:43 +0200
Subject: Re: Spin bit decision
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
CC: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.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> <24019_1538484216_5BB367F8_24019_26_1_8e6b0d8e-78f0-56c7-e731-da2ff22cb194@orange.com> <08A9C80F-59E6-46EE-A4D4-1F78F5085CF7@eggert.org>
From: alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com
Message-ID: <9737_1538485723_5BB36DDB_9737_147_1_82e0e028-b0e8-5e09-7bd5-e66db97c556a@orange.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:07:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <08A9C80F-59E6-46EE-A4D4-1F78F5085CF7@eggert.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.168.234.6]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/CV9X_qo73Ju3-d1ljgoXn34ezCg>
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 13:08:46 -0000

On 10/02/18 14:55, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> again, as an individual:
> 
> On 2018-10-2, at 15:41, <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com> <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com> wrote:
>> Well, if the spec says that en endpoint MUST copy of flip a bit, an implementor would be fairly ill-advised not do comply.
> 
> sure, it may be "ill-advised", but in practice, it won't affect interop at all.
> 
>> And nothing prevents from adding a "does it spin ?" criterion to the interop test suite.
> 
> We can certainly consider this - it may give us some data about the current capabilities and configurations of the participating stacks.

More than that: you seem to be implying that automated interop testing outweighs 
textual specification. No problem with that; let's focus on test definition then.

>> Clearly you now have this degree of freedom: weaken that MUST into a MAY or a SHOULD, separately for each role. But for what purpose ?
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is that it in practice doesn't matter if the spec says "MUST", "SHOULD" or "MAY", since it doesn't affect interop, and doesn't affect performance. Essentially, each stack can decide in isolation whether to spin, echo, do nothing, grease the bits, etc., no matter what language we put in the spec.

Sure. So, what is there to lose by saying "MUST" anyway ?


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.