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

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 02 August 2021 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CAA3A1551; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eTYqPWpFo9-a; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DC193A154B; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by ( with ESMTPS id 172Ic57d006367 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Aug 2021 18:38:06 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.15; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:38:04 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.015; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:38:04 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <>
To: QUIC WG <>
CC: QUIC WG Chairs <>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Consensus call for qlog serialization format (issue #144)
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Consensus call for qlog serialization format (issue #144)
Thread-Index: AQHXh6GqzcTca2ik1k+IeIsm09R9Natg1OOAgAAfh4CAAAy6AA==
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 18:38:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FF8D263D-CC1E-4939-A9F4-59706C899CD2"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-08-02_07:2021-08-02, 2021-08-02 signatures=0
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: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 18:38:11 -0000

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.

> The current draft is a starting point but is not intended to be the final solution. 
> Should the WG determine consensus on using _a JSON_ serialization, the editors and WG will unblocked on iterating the finer details of _the JSON_ serialization. The specific examples you provide are good, they can be tracked as issues against the draft.
> I'd also like to clarify that this consensus call relates to only a JSON serialization. Although the issue mentions streaming serialization (and NDJSON) and Robin presented some slides on the topic during the IETF 111 meeting, our intention continue that discussion separately pending the outcome of this call. I've created a new issue to make this clear [1].
> Does that clarify things sufficiently?

It does, thanks! If the WG wants to have a canonical, interoperable serialization instead of a set of data types (such as Section 1.1 in the draft), I support JSON because of its commonness and mostly-useful mapping to the problem space. 

--Paul Hoffman