-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 204
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merge normative -spin-exp text into -transport #2369
Comments
There are a few apparently-open questions (which I thought were resolved, and apparently @ihlar too, since he submitted #2364); my understanding of the state is in bold below:
This understanding derives from the state of discussions after the London and Bangkok meetings (copied from #2364 comments):
|
(also from the #2364 discussion...) FWIW, I do think that advanced heuristics for deriving metrics from the spin bit signal are properly experimental, but since that's generalized measurement methodology work, it rather belongs in IPPM than QUIC (note this is a personal opinion, without IPPM chair hat). Most of the simple how-to-measure text currently in spin-exp should move into the (informational) -manageability draft, and my understanding as editor is that a PR for that is forthcoming (addressing quicwg/ops-drafts#58). |
My understanding was always that the plan was to merge this into the transport doc and never that the the spin-exp is meant to be published as an own doc. The chairs only hold us at some point to create an own doc (instead of trying to get an PR up to date) such that it is easier to people to experiment until we have a final decision and merge it in. We even had a hum on this in Bangkok:
Yes: Strong hum (4-5 hums for inclusion, no against) No: Medium-Strong hum (less) I asked at the end of the session if we are ready to merge and got a yes. I don't know what this discussion is about because we really have already clear consensus here. I would just recommend to close the issue. |
I agree with the statements above, and I cannot recollect that option b was ever discussed. |
Not sure about the process and the formalities, but since the spin-bit is an optional feature, and several implementations are not planning to implement it, I think it would improve the readability of the already very long transport document (141 pages!) to keep it clearly separated in its own document. This would relieve implementers from having to skip over irrelevant text. |
on review of the minutes, agree with @mirjak: paging @martinthomson and @janaiyengar with their editor hats on: once you're awake can you have a look and close this issue? |
I am not sure if "including spin-bit in the specification" means including it in the transport draft, considering the fact that we already have multiple documents that specify the QUIC protocol: invariants, transport, TLS, recovery. Having another document seems to be a natural way of integrating a specific feature. Among the documents, I think it might be natural to assume that the transport document would have the shortest lifetime, while there is fair chance that TLS and recovery documents will be reused in QUIC v2. I'd also assume the spin-bit draft to have a longer lifetime, because I do not think we want to change the definition of the spin bits for each QUIC version. That seems to be one reason to prefer having spin bit as a separate draft regardless of the intended status of spin bit. Is there a specific reason to incorporate the spin-bit specification into the transport draft? |
That's an interesting perspective. Also, it is only the normative text that would be included in the transport draft and that's not a large amount of text at all. Finally, there are two pieces of text relating to the bit that we want to publish, the normative part which is short and intended for implementors and text on how to detect the bit and how/what to measure etc. That second piece is the one which will require more text and is likely of less interest to implementors, therefore a good fit for it would be the manageability document. |
@britram yes, I'm working on it. I'm reading the latest changes that are proposed and adjusting accordingly for quicwg/ops-drafts#58 |
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:18 AM Kazuho Oku ***@***.***> wrote:
I am not sure if "including spin-bit in the specification" means including
it in the transport draft, considering the fact that we already have
multiple documents that specify the QUIC protocol: invariants, transport,
TLS, recovery. Having another document seems to be a natural way of
integrating a specific feature.
Among the documents, I think it might be natural to assume that the
transport document would have the shortest lifetime, while there is fair
chance that TLS and recovery documents will be reused in QUIC v2. I'd also
assume the spin-bit draft to have a longer lifetime, because I do not think
we want to change the definition of the spin bits for each QUIC version.
That seems to be one reason to prefer having spin bit as a separate draft
regardless of the status of the document. Is there a specific reason to
incorporate the spin-bit specification into the transport draft?
The transport draft is the logical place to say that the bit is taken and
to give a pointer to what it is taken for. I think keeping the normative
text on how to exercise the bit in the transport draft is cleaner. It may
change in some later version, but this is the v1 meaning of that bit and
its states.
It is not an invariant, in other words, but a v1 feature that may not be
continued in later versions. That's not quite experimental in the usual
sense--a change to the meaning would occur in later versions. (You could,
of course, later have a security draft say that even v1 ought to refrain
from spinning, should some issue occur, but that wouldn't change what
spinning meant)
Ted
… —
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2369 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVb5KjEzrC9dqRFyQi9wXsKCS6IRQD6ks5vGYh7gaJpZM4aQb9w>
.
|
So, to be clear, the document split is an entirely editorial decision;
let's not conflate that with discussions about whether spin is PS or not.
Of course, if spin is not PS, then the answer is clear, but even if spin is
PS, whether it remains in a separate document or not is still an editorial
discussion.
I'm happy to have this discussion in Tokyo, but we need to clearly separate
the two discussions.
Please note that the recovery draft is standards track, but it is a
separate document. Being in a separate document is meaningful for things
that can modularly be separated, esp since the transport document is
already quite long at the moment.
…On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:30 AM hardie ***@***.***> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:18 AM Kazuho Oku ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I am not sure if "including spin-bit in the specification" means
including
> it in the transport draft, considering the fact that we already have
> multiple documents that specify the QUIC protocol: invariants, transport,
> TLS, recovery. Having another document seems to be a natural way of
> integrating a specific feature.
>
> Among the documents, I think it might be natural to assume that the
> transport document would have the shortest lifetime, while there is fair
> chance that TLS and recovery documents will be reused in QUIC v2. I'd
also
> assume the spin-bit draft to have a longer lifetime, because I do not
think
> we want to change the definition of the spin bits for each QUIC version.
>
> That seems to be one reason to prefer having spin bit as a separate draft
> regardless of the status of the document. Is there a specific reason to
> incorporate the spin-bit specification into the transport draft?
>
The transport draft is the logical place to say that the bit is taken and
to give a pointer to what it is taken for. I think keeping the normative
text on how to exercise the bit in the transport draft is cleaner. It may
change in some later version, but this is the v1 meaning of that bit and
its states.
It is not an invariant, in other words, but a v1 feature that may not be
continued in later versions. That's not quite experimental in the usual
sense--a change to the meaning would occur in later versions. (You could,
of course, later have a security draft say that even v1 ought to refrain
from spinning, should some issue occur, but that wouldn't change what
spinning meant)
Ted
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <
#2369 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVb5KjEzrC9dqRFyQi9wXsKCS6IRQD6ks5vGYh7gaJpZM4aQb9w
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2369 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKjg1DoiyxpWo39ZPTuM5ehu8LC7EZh6ks5vGfvFgaJpZM4aQb9w>
.
|
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:50 PM Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
wrote:
So, to be clear, the document split is an entirely editorial decision;
let's not conflate that with discussions about whether spin is PS or not.
Of course, if spin is not PS, then the answer is clear, but even if spin is
PS, whether it remains in a separate document or not is still an editorial
discussion.
So I went back to the recording on this (
https://youtu.be/s3aiyJI1xdU?t=5644) and the rough consensus was "to
include the spin bit in the specification". To my mind, I think that is
clear that the consensus declared there and confirmed on the list was to
have it at the same level as the spec (so, PS).
Amusingly, if you listen past the negotiation section which follows, Mirja
asks whether that means spin bit should get merged into the transport
document. Not to spoil the ending, Lars answered yes and then immediately
back tracked to make this an editorial decision, which got general approval.
I'm happy to have this discussion in Tokyo, but we need to clearly separate
the two discussions.
I really don't want to discuss the question of PS vs. experimental in
Tokyo. I am happy to express my preferences to the editors of the draft on
which editorial choice I would prefer as a reader, but I think that this is an editorial
decision was settled back in Bangkok.
Please note that the recovery draft is standards track, but it is a
separate document. Being in a separate document is meaningful for things
that can modularly be separated, esp since the transport document is
already quite long at the moment.
And I think that is the crux of the discussion. Having decided that we
are doing this for version one, I don't think it is useful to call out the
behavior of this bit as separate enough to require an independent doc, any
more than I would suggest doing that for address validation or connection
migration, each of which also could be carved out.
Ted
… On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:30 AM hardie ***@***.***> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:18 AM Kazuho Oku ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure if "including spin-bit in the specification" means
> including
> > it in the transport draft, considering the fact that we already have
> > multiple documents that specify the QUIC protocol: invariants,
transport,
> > TLS, recovery. Having another document seems to be a natural way of
> > integrating a specific feature.
> >
> > Among the documents, I think it might be natural to assume that the
> > transport document would have the shortest lifetime, while there is
fair
> > chance that TLS and recovery documents will be reused in QUIC v2. I'd
> also
> > assume the spin-bit draft to have a longer lifetime, because I do not
> think
> > we want to change the definition of the spin bits for each QUIC
version.
> >
> > That seems to be one reason to prefer having spin bit as a separate
draft
> > regardless of the status of the document. Is there a specific reason to
> > incorporate the spin-bit specification into the transport draft?
> >
> The transport draft is the logical place to say that the bit is taken and
> to give a pointer to what it is taken for. I think keeping the normative
> text on how to exercise the bit in the transport draft is cleaner. It may
> change in some later version, but this is the v1 meaning of that bit and
> its states.
>
> It is not an invariant, in other words, but a v1 feature that may not be
> continued in later versions. That's not quite experimental in the usual
> sense--a change to the meaning would occur in later versions. (You could,
> of course, later have a security draft say that even v1 ought to refrain
> from spinning, should some issue occur, but that wouldn't change what
> spinning meant)
>
> Ted
>
>
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <
> #2369 (comment)
>,
> > or mute the thread
> > <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVb5KjEzrC9dqRFyQi9wXsKCS6IRQD6ks5vGYh7gaJpZM4aQb9w
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <
#2369 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKjg1DoiyxpWo39ZPTuM5ehu8LC7EZh6ks5vGfvFgaJpZM4aQb9w
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2369 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVb5DXIJKqqH6qVtI20dkmVvSZiMWzBks5vG8J7gaJpZM4aQb9w>
.
|
In advance of the Tokyo meeting, I came in here to say what @hardie said. On review the std/exp question was pretty clearly answered in BKK. I personally don't care deeply whether the normative bits of the spin bit live in -transport or in their own document, though I don't buy the arguments for doing so. Addressing @marten-seemann's point: yes, -transport is big (but, after the recent editorial rework, much easier to navigate, so there's that). #2364 seems to weigh in at ~2 old-style pages, so while all efforts to reduce document size are appreciated, I don't think not adding the spin bit generation language will make a material difference. Other strictly-optional features of the transport protocol are not separated out. For example, connection migration is strictly-speaking optional on the client side, and is far more complicated both technically and editorially, such that a separate document on connection migration might even make the entire set of final documents more usable. But nobody has yet suggested that (and, to make it very clear, I am not suggesting that either). |
I think like Marcus that the normative text should be in the transport document. It is a short text and this way it will be clearer to the reader. |
I think that we did this already. |
#2364 proposes to merge the normative part of -spin-exp (how to generate the signal, and how to probabalistically participate) into -transport.
There appears to be some lack of clarity on the Bangkok consensus in the discussion on that PR; per @larseggert let's discuss this here on this issue (and the list) instead of in the PR.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: