My reference to PLUS in the QUIC session today.
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 22 March 2018 12:54 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 A3B1D124319 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kCb32KlKtDer for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x234.google.com (mail-yb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF8F1200F1 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v8-v6so2867218ybm.11 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xm58NE/Z+jyjJNKEaRVbhcZJEOgCVbjh6c7mT7lrmGI=; b=EZ3O/FeIua8pzebDsZolXNiiFgL7DJ01RSLL6MQcrn2S49HwSLjrICJzNQVKOyAVqO hn0okbxF29xPMBMMDOctQxPB8VMID76u+XYN5xUU07ThUk3UfGbr3AeeyWzaQGM1ZMrC gDXna71dP08LYCeYLMQpwplqLoqeIUkeLo5x+1frmNd0j5ODMHWFtdN6/BbkCC5uT8uu ye7cXm6TgDlub3Xeke0uj5h9sVUah59xiPO66kjgzlKBS0QTdU735htaAfqqtagkwglT ddVUaR20ErkPYkuhhRvvrvc0PSpyVX2wjjBJdv2MyxrKHaU51HJatXfHtZQV8oPKq/75 ipaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xm58NE/Z+jyjJNKEaRVbhcZJEOgCVbjh6c7mT7lrmGI=; b=ftuceNeai02KKT1ydKxnvJqU3JMPO5AHs/R57iZ5XE3H60MsTVNjOmEo3XfZV2wNC0 CFBPILi8Rt+uocTQEjWm3gTyhHSWGHN8JryPIk6b1MSeVCL4/k6j/3jDs1gfNOM4jLbm wqm2FrW9a/7GygVrZyIZXxCnBVl5uZtyB6En83c0EFAI7xCkWBpbPL9C5g/g2YfRrW6m UnReMCzn221oZKb3p9ViitLFXxNjPvaJTmoxWBRcrB7xHLdzBSUw4Xii7JN2Evy7GwXm OArr5aPC5esSKM3df0XyQ25KAjQmYya7TO7JdNWc9b7RANgvtyzMlbkMkSHF5Ax7jTCL hFkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GTFP0DbZZD/Wigcz1HAtSG+9gGt99ts8uMHOT+eXFPcfg8AWCf 9l5AY07FxU5yViury229MQxuCCeqVSDFlEZRXsU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv5iHiUYylpcwykTEXqQMwgCo1mOo27Cf1iEm4u0GRfWRBhGSraXh2Xw3XFNDW4gvvQ7vEc/cN3J5hFutTTeP0=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1e44:: with SMTP id e65-v6mr8557920ybe.221.1521723256026; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:54:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dunozEbTp2YC6gpBufvuUY_X5F2eGCnewM6BX78neMYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: My reference to PLUS in the QUIC session today.
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f3a450567ffceae"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/_FTs5fvE_l2VhVuSDa-Wa2G67iI>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:54:19 -0000
During today's working group session, I made a comment that confused the heck out of a participant who has been trying to figure out what I was actually talking about for nearly two decades, so thought I should forward my response to the working group, in case my comment was mysterious. I apologize to anyone else who was baffled as well. It's also worth saying that i don't have an opinion on the technical aspects of the Spin Bit proposal(s). That's what the working group works on. Spencer, as responsible AD --- previous response follows. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I am trying as AD to find out whether this community can have a "privacy and monitoring/management" conversation that converges in finite time. At PLUS BOF time, I assert that answer was "no". I don't want to waste QUIC working group time on non converging conversations. The hums in a few minutes will be educational for me. If that's still not what you think makes sense, I'm here for the next 48 hours and have no plans for lunch or dinner today. Thanks for asking for clarification. My wife feels your pain from time to time. Spencer >
- My reference to PLUS in the QUIC session today. Spencer Dawkins at IETF