Re: The first octet

<> Wed, 08 August 2018 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A84C130E4F for <>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.291
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DK1YJRs3PnkM for <>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6576130E7B for <>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.7]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 41lsWF2fHnz7wKl; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:22:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 41lsWF1tfMz2xC0; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:22:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:22:32 +0200
Subject: Re: The first octet
To: Martin Thomson <>
CC: Kazuho Oku <>, QUIC WG <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:22:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr-xx-moderne
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:22:37 -0000

On 08/08/18 12:05, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I know you discussed taking more bits and even bytes, but the case
> hasn't been made in this working group to my knowledge.  I certainly
> don't think that's justified; it improved fidelity of measurements,
> but the spin bit appears to be pretty good at that without the extra
> overheads.

Fidelity is indeed the criterion to decide 1 (spin bit) vs 3 (spin bit + VEC) 
for RTT measurements, right.

However, measurements also include packet loss, which is typically more 
widespread than delay in big pipes (which don't have enough RAM to keep a packet 
for too long at line rate). And spin+VEC do not address packet loss at all, 
hence our 7-bit spin counter proposal shown in London.

I admit that 7 is hefty if you're starting from Christian's songle spin bit ; 

  - I assume nobody will emit any doubt about the criticality of 
non-delay-related (big pipe) loss location. Unless everybody here has perfect 
networks and ideal reporting, that is.

  - Stick the spin bit on top of these 7, make that an extra easurement byte and 
you've got your three spare bits again in the first byte.


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.