Re: [Ext] Consensus call for qlog serialization format (issue #144)

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 2, 2021, at 6:23 AM, Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello QUIC WG,
> 
> During the IETF 111 meeting discussion of qlog, we discussed the serialization format tracked on issue #114 [1].
> 
> The feeling in the room was to keep the JSON serialization format. Noting that implementations can use their own intermediate formats and transform to and from JSON as needed, and that future documents could specify other interop formats if there is sufficient interest.
> 
> The proposed resolution for this matter is to keep the JSON serialization format as the canonical interoperable format. This email seeks to establish consensus for this. If you have comments, for or against, please respond on the issue. The call will run until EoD August 9 2021.

Which JSON serialization is being discussed here? If it is the one in Section 6.1, it is explicitly not canonical, and not interoperable. For example, 6.1.1 gives QLOG emitters a choice of writing large numbers a numbers or strings. Section 6.1.2.1 gives multiple ways of truncating byte strings. Section 6.1.4 allows QLOG emitters use non-standard JSON (trailing commas). There are also other SHOULD-level requirements for JSON emitters in other parts of the draft, such as in section 3.

I would support having a JSON serialization format as the canonical interoperable format, but only if there is eventually a canonical JSON format, which there is not currently. Without a canonical JSON serialization, there can be no interoperability with other formats.

--Paul HOffman