Splitting QUIC-LB into two docs

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hello QUIC enthusiasts,

*TL;DR*
At IETF 112 I proposed splitting the QUIC-LB draft into two documents, to
broad indifference. You can see the result in this branch:
https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers/tree/split-docs

If people are generally OK with splitting the load balancing bit and the
retry offload bit into separate adopted documents, I would like to merge
this change and do the associated datatracker actions.

*Longer Explanation:*
When Nick Banks came up with the idea of Retry offload, it fit with the
general theme of middlebox coordination, so we just tacked it on to our
QUIC-LB draft. This has become increasingly ill-advised for several reasons:

- These systems have nothing to do with each other, except for the very
high-level idea of middlebox coordination
- It balloons the draft from 35 to 53 pages, which reduces the likelihood
of quality reviews
- If the RFC requires an update in the future, more text will increase the
workload, and it is unlikely both designs will simultaneously need an update
- There is no reason to think that implementation maturity for the two
halves will stay in sync, meaning that one part could hold back WGLC for
the other
- The load balancer part is largely version-independent, and retry offload
is not.
- QUIC-LB isn't even a good name for the doc if a bunch of it has nothing
to do with load balancers
- There are other middlebox-themed proposals out there, like Reset offload
<https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers/issues/119> and Proxy Protocol
for QUIC <https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers/issues/51>. Without
launching a discussion about the merits of these here, if our draft is
going to be the receptacle for all middlebox stuff, there will be further
bloat. IMO these should be separate drafts.

Anyhow, please take a look at the branch, collect some thoughts, and you
can yell at me in Vienna if you find it to be disagreeable.

Martin