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

Lucas Pardue <> Thu, 05 August 2021 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA6E3A0E9B; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 05:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0QBemEkTw7Xt; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 05:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6F003A0E97; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 05:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k9so8062429edr.10; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 05:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yTs1j7Yxzb5wM0E2vM/fRALSLhJgGtAFufoiEML0Khc=; b=ffpqkmK62gYJi6hCzJwgrJ77CAcVL10sBQ8bfBohaaJXw7oZ8sdsfDPbtdqJE7ua/Y MD5c1fTpi9J7Qm6cYZMnxSn3Ts0iNyh4SEENAcFsvhOM/GuHdNJnkvBCnz3WQt88GTD9 7MTLUQb4GHnxi1C+5258ZAtptOghKzqQy6X17Npygido7p1maY6VAjAxu3KswdlEWsBN xuVQRcJs4g4aS31FpztLimK5w/R05jwPlTOSMmGD5rx4qSoseDflGTxD6P51JMh6Hwqb RPt9CPdlVFnXKjrG/zkcg22Ar9m1eHIpncBnEpVGm4CmCpfB8nwJezD4vTmWj3pzfmEe 0Q2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yTs1j7Yxzb5wM0E2vM/fRALSLhJgGtAFufoiEML0Khc=; b=XEJ0QBfmZtgTqkLBn0Cqa7lKBFXmmx09IRkJh2vFkbFQgtZAMcvUT0YJHy8qPGTo6t 7ZIfluRQMimcBp8yp/4ZOeYwXkFQnnvBEbrXWgzMqKqFI8SpeZLl/pEyOrnVuJ5o435W h3TH2u06yXNR3jDboeugSGQNPvfEj51hjZHxnZY6cszMjfva17PgaNffTnR871Zx+2QK qkXeTX9WfBafCN23ozZocDJXW2UyYputcqQ3S1dAykTpZq5qNprVkBASkPr7hnsMMtso F2jrZ3ViYjKEwgWjqyCGWq7BiYsytI5NZTyx19C6+T7+7lS2NStT+YE43iMlkJ1/lxm+ iBtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532cCIQ28E2WRUnpW2lzXl6gxV+HvwtxkEmuFMjfXClWunehqKPW 54VpN9tWTLS5Ja4WkI6SFCZnHt0t+8N3dIe8cfI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzoWmNSZqF9cEj2QnD9LQUUW9BVyU/mUXkfppHnk6B5VtPBHGNxZDZibmAYcGlaNMmotEg657kn/1aDV1RDiSw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:299:: with SMTP id l25mr6195154edv.283.1628166044210; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 05:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 13:20:31 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Consensus call for qlog serialization format (issue #144)
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: QUIC WG <>, QUIC WG Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b359e605c8cef2fa"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 12:20:52 -0000

Hi Paul,

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:38 PM Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> On Aug 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lucas Pardue <>
> wrote:
> > The intention here is to determine consensus on using _a JSON_
> serialization and not a completely different format.
> The associated question, which was not asked on this thread is "should
> there be any serialization format chosen, or just a data definition?". I
> would have leaned towards that, particularly because of the thorny JSON
> serialization issues brought up in the draft. However, that discussion
> often gets too meta for folks who want to start debugging and logging now.

There's quite a large population of people already using JSON for qlog,
prior to WG adoption. So far, there has been a practical benefit to an
interoperable serialization format that was strongly linked to the schema
definition by draft version. During the adoption call I don't recall there
being suggestions for dropping serialization altogether from

Wearing no hats: I think including at least one serialization format as
part of the work is a useful function to drive design and development
decisions. There might be a question about whether
draft-ietf-quic-qlog-main-schema should include the concrete serialization
or if it should be spun out to a separate document. However, I think this
question is tangential to the current call.