RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: יום ד 22 נובמבר 2017 15:56
> To: Salvatore Loreto
> Cc: Roni Even; Brian Trammell; Mark Nottingham; QUIC WG
> Subject: Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2017-11-22, at 14:31, Salvatore Loreto <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Indeed in the original mail Mark is on one side proposing to discuss
> > it in London (instead that into the next interim) but at same time is
> > leaving open the possibility to postpone the final decision until
> > right before shipping the protocol to the IESG
> 
> I think the decision to not discuss it at the interim is based on the observation
> that the registered attendees at the interim are probably not representative
> of the overall WG constituency - we want to give all sides an ability to
> participate equally in the discussion.
[Roni Even] This is why we have remote participants at IETF meetings !!!!!!!!
You do not have to be in person to discuss!!!!
> 
> > While I agree with Mark assessment that we can tip this into the short
> > header relatively late in the game, I am concerned for this huge potential
> delay for a proposal that I would argue is already clear to all people actively
> involved in the QUIC design.
> >
> > Can you please which are the next steps you are going to follow here?
> 
> I think what Mark tried to express is that the discussion on the Spin Bit can be
> mostly decoupled from the (large amount of) work remaining on the base
> spec. That is, we don't have to conclude the Spin Bit discussion significantly
> prior to the conclusion of the overall work (although we can), since it should
> be easy to merge at the later stages before handing things to the IESG.
[Roni Even] delaying the discussion may prevent the acceptance.  If people will put effort at submitting text then the chairs should allow for discussion and not delay the work. 
> 
> Lars