Subject: RE: Spin bit decision
From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
To: Nick Banks <nibanks=[email-masked]>, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>, "<[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:48:04 +0000
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>

>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

A hypothetical spin stick.

With a cyncial endpoint operator hat on, I think the realisation spin bit benefits could be minimal. Leading to little incentive to implement spin bit. Using a stick, like causing connection termination, sounds like it will introduce fun and games for interop testing, and deployment on heterogenous real-world networks.

What's the carrot to offer a non-hyperscaler?

-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------