Re: Spin bit decision

[<[e-mail]>]

Exactly. It is only a question of deciding we want it.


On 10/02/18 16:26, Nick Banks wrote:
> If we decide to make it a MUST, it seems to me that it would be pretty easy to add some logic to check that your peer is 'spinning' the bit. If they are not, after a couple of RTTs just to make sure, you could close the connection (add a new PEER_NOT_SPINNING error code). If just one or two major implementations implement the validation logic, then we could ensure interop and compliance for the most part.
> 
> - Nick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: QUIC <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 7:00 AM
> To: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Spin bit decision
> 
> Hi,
> 
> yet again as an individual.
> 
> On 2018-10-2, at 16:07, [e-mail] wrote:
>> On 10/02/18 14:55, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> We can certainly consider this - it may give us some data about the current capabilities and configurations of the participating stacks.
>> 
>> More than that: you seem to be implying that automated interop testing outweighs textual specification. No problem with that; let's focus on test definition then.
> 
> I'm not implying that at all, and I'm confused as to why you'd think so?
> 
>>>> Clearly you now have this degree of freedom: weaken that MUST into a MAY or a SHOULD, separately for each role. But for what purpose ?
>>> The point I'm trying to make is that it in practice doesn't matter if the spec says "MUST", "SHOULD" or "MAY", since it doesn't affect interop, and doesn't affect performance. Essentially, each stack can decide in isolation whether to spin, echo, do nothing, grease the bits, etc., no matter what language we put in the spec.
>> 
>> Sure. So, what is there to lose by saying "MUST" anyway ?
> 
> This is a discussion the WG needs to have after there is consensus to merge the spin bit proposal.
> 
> The point I can't seem to be getting across is that irrespective of what the WG decides to require, there is no penalty for individual stacks at deployment time (or after) to do whatever they wish, since the spin bit by design has no impact on protocol operation and interop.
> 
> Lars
> 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.