Re: Big changes in -17

<> Tue, 30 October 2018 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FDC2130DCA for <>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:20:09 -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 E9GNwrlVCfTi for <>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03685130DCB for <>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42knXQ5lh0z7tfn; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:20:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42knXQ4fK4zBrLg; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:20:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:20:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Big changes in -17
To: Martin Thomson <>
References: <> <> <>
Reply-To: Alexandre Ferrieux <>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:20:07 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
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: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:20:13 -0000

On 10/29/2018 11:35 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:26 AM <> wrote:
>> Do I assume correctly that "the designs discussed" are the following three:
>>   - nothing (no spin bit)
>>   - spin bit alone
>>   - spin bit + VEC
>> Or is there room for other (written) proposals ?
> You should refer to the email from Lars.  I believe that the approach
> they propose only considers "no spin bit" vs. "spin bit alone".

Then, this means that the two reserved bits (0x3 in 1st byte) are out of scope 
for v1, right ?


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.