RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian, Stephen, Lars, Mark and all,

one join, one suggestion, and one question below.
see [ACM]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: QUIC [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell
> (IETF)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 5:59 AM
> To: Eggert, Lars
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; QUIC WG; Stephen Farrell
> Subject: Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
> 
> hi Lars,
> 
> > On 22 Nov 2017, at 11:35, Eggert, Lars <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2017-11-22, at 11:01, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> What I thought was being requested and what I do think is reasonable
> >> is to document a privacy analysis for any quic protocol bits that are
> >> visible to the path. Whether or not some or all of that text ends up
> >> in some RFC is another day's work.
> > Lars wrote:
> > for the Spin Bit specifically, the intent was to permanently capture
> the analysis the DT has done, so that when others review the proposed
> Spin Bit specification, they can take that as a given and direct any
> further analysis to other aspects. It made sense to the chairs that that
> specific analysis should become part of the Spin Bit specification. I
> think we'd be open to a discussion on whether a broader document
> analyzing the QUIC wire image would be a better home for this. The main
> point is for the work that the DT has done to be documented.

> Brian wrote:
> Okay. That's somewhat more reasonable than what I read the ask to be
> ("we're going to gate this on the people who care about this doing some
> non-trivial amount of work"). Those of us who volunteer (help, please,
> anyone? :) ) can certainly pull together what we have in a single I-D
> and ask the WG what more it thinks it needs. To me all this seems pretty
> clear, but I've been working on this topic for a while.
[ACM] 
Having reached the end of the "Thanksgiving thread",
I'm scrolling back a few pages to join the task of 
permanently capturing the work of the DT in an I-D (at least):
There should be lasting value in some of our findings
and IMO they are worthy of a persistent reference.

> Lars wrote:
> > For proposals other than the Spin Bit (I think I have seen individual
> contributors at least mention "loss" and "congestion" bits, but without
> much detail), we wanted to clarify that we'd like to see an analysis and
> discussion of their privacy aspects to roughly the same degree as the DT
> has performed for the Spin Bit proposal.
> 
[ACM] 
I suggest that this might be a different I-D, at least to start.
Question: Is there a privacy analysis of present ECN available?
(a search yielded many results with Missing: privacy)

regards,
Al