Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

["Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2017-11-22, at 11:01, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> What I thought was being requested and what I do think is reasonable
> is to document a privacy analysis for any quic protocol bits that are
> visible to the path. Whether or not some or all of that text ends up
> in some RFC is another day's work.

for the Spin Bit specifically, the intent was to permanently capture the analysis the DT has done, so that when others review the proposed Spin Bit specification, they can take that as a given and direct any further analysis to other aspects. It made sense to the chairs that that specific analysis should become part of the Spin Bit specification. I think we'd be open to a discussion on whether a broader document analyzing the QUIC wire image would be a better home for this. The main point is for the work that the DT has done to be documented.

For proposals other than the Spin Bit (I think I have seen individual contributors at least mention "loss" and "congestion" bits, but without much detail), we wanted to clarify that we'd like to see an analysis and discussion of their privacy aspects to roughly the same degree as the DT has performed for the Spin Bit proposal.

Lars