RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

<snip>
> 
> > The Spin Bit alone took six months and a DT, and it's arguably amongst the
> most simple proposals one could make in this space.
> 
> Indeed, it was specifically designed to be the simplest possible proposal in
> this space. And if my read of this thread is correct, that the chairs believe
> there is no consensus to add the spin bit, and that a proposal to add the spin
> bit will be considered at IETF 101, it'll end up taking basically a year. PR 609
> was submitted in Paris, but the discussion about explicit measurability
> predates it a bit.
> 
[Roni Even] The process of having a DT and blocking discussion during the time for the 4 month between the meeting slowed the progress. This WG trues to work in a fast pace and I think that in Singapore and on the mailing list we saw strong support from the parties who will use the spin bit to move it fast. Waiting for London will further delay.
I was planning to provide replacement text for 609 this week or no later than next week, defining the spin bit based on the discussions we had in Singapore and on the list for a new PR for the QUIC transport document.
We can have in parallel a non WG document on RTT measurements using the spin bit even though it place may be in the QUIC manageability document.
Roni Even