►
From YouTube: IETF101-QUIC-20180322-0930
Description
QUIC meeting session at IETF101
2018/03/22 0930
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/proceedings/
A
A
This
is
the
note
well,
this
is
the
new
note.
Well,
if
you're
not
familiar
with
this,
the
best
thing
to
do
is
to
use
your
favorite
web
search
engine
while
you,
if
you
can
read
that
that's
great
or
you
can
use
your
favorite
web
search
engine
to
search
for
ietf
note.
Well,
it's
about
these
terms
under
which
we
participate
regarding
things
like
intellectual
property
and
anti-harassment
procedures
and
lots
of
other
stuff
that
we
do
take
seriously.
So
please
make
sure
that
you
are
familiar
with
this.
A
The
agenda
was
Monday.
Now
we
have
Thursday,
the
blue
sheets
are
going
around.
Please
sign
them
when
they
come
to
you,
we
have
a
scribe.
Thank
you
very
much
Tommy.
We
are
now
about
bashing
the
agenda,
so
we're
gonna
have
a
fairly
brief
discussion
of
ecn,
a
presentation
of
discussion
that
we
hunted
from
Monday
before
that.
Actually,
in
the
slide
and
one
other
thing,
we
want
to
double
check
that
make
sure
that
we're
good
with
the
invariance
we
started.
A
The
workgroup
last
call,
if
we
have
anything
to
discuss
now,
is
a
good
opportunity
to
do
that
and
then
the
main
event
we're
going
to
discuss
the
spended
proposal
and
we're
sorting
up
a
presentation
about
it
and
we're
going
to
conclude
those
questions.
I
really
hope
so.
Yes,
we're,
never
presentation
and
then
clarifying
questions
and
then
we're
going
to
move
to
a
discussion
phase
on
it
and
at
the
end,
we'll
try
and
use
moms.
If
we
have
time
after
that,
we'll
have
some
issue
discussion.
Any
agenda
bashing.
Martin!
C
B
New
back
up
a
bit,
the
payload
of
the
boat
of
negotiation
in
packet
is
currently
a
list
of
version
negotiation
versions
back
to
back
to
back,
build
the
entire
packet.
There's
no
length
on
that.
There's
no
way
for
us
to
add
anything
else
to
that
packet.
That
was
semi
intentional,
but
I,
don't
think
we
ever
wrote
down
the
fact
that
it
was
intentional
and
I
don't
think
we
ever
really.
We
discussed
bad
so.
D
B
F
It
extends
past
the
length
okay.
That
would
be
the
idea
yeah
so
but
I
guess
I
mean
generally
just
there's
some
interaction
here
with
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
modify
the
way.
The
first
negotiation
works
to
be
more
like
the
to
be
to
have
the
VPN
be
mostly
obfuscation
version
how
they
interior
version
negotiation.
If
we
did
that
that
it
really
doesn't
matter
with
that,
we
do
this
fail.
It
does
because
only.
G
F
One
thing:
if
we're
not
going
to
death
and
things
of
our
tractor
to
have
a
tangibility,
so
I
don't
know,
like,
unfortunately,
I
felt,
like
these
issues
are
intertwined,
which
er
that
pretty
soon
but
like
we
stopped
the
decides,
want
to
take
it
so
I,
don't
know
I'm
pretty
reluctant
about.
H
H
B
Is
to
allow
both
client
and
server
to
agree
on
two
things
and
we
sort
of
pile
a
bunch
of
other
things
on
top
of
it
at
the
moment.
But
fundamentally,
it's
really
only
two
things
and
the
first
thing
is
the
the
way
in
which
you,
obviously
the
handshake
packets
and
the
second
one
is
the
the
handshake
protocol
that
you're
actually
engaging
it
and
that's
actually
it
we
pile
a
bunch
of
other
things
on
top
of
it
and
workers
body.
Yes,
we
could
do.
B
B
If
those
are
the
only
two
things,
we're
protecting
I
think
we're
actually,
okay
with
what
we
have
and
if
we
can
do
a
log
once
we
actually
get
into
version
specific
stuff
and
so
I'm
comfortable
with
the
current
design.
But
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
other
people
are
also
comfortable
with
the
current
design
Jake.
B
Do
you
wanna
I'm,
not
sure
that
this
is
either
you
haven't
had
enough
time
to
think
about
this
at
each
ourselves
sure
and
comes
around
conclusions,
and
given
that
this
was
raised
yesterday
and
given
that
even
people
have
thought
about
this,
quite
a
bit
still
stretching
that
scratching
their
heads
and
thinking
about
it.
Sure
I
would
suggest
that
what
we
do
is
simply
talk
about
it
for
a
little
bit
and
make
it
just
another.
Last
comment
and
you'll
see
what
we
turn
up
in
the
next
two
to
three
weeks.
So.
A
A
J
F
Did
we
commit
that
as
an
invariant,
but
no
I
understand,
but
is
that
just
in
the
this
is
all
who
knows
what
this
is
it?
That's
in
the
undefined
region
right
right?
So
if
we
needed
to,
we
could
deal
with
this
by
putting
up,
but
by
having
a
like
a
parent
life
field
right
without
breaking
the
variance
I
guess
that's
true
I
mean
so
this
is
what
happens
when
you
try
to
fly
a
car.
Did
you
find
the
box
before
to
find
anything
in
the
box,
but
I
mean
you
know
so
I
it.
F
So
we're
never
a
light
resist
this,
but
you
know,
then,
if
you
imagine
that,
like
this
protocol
assign
five
years
ago-
and
we
might
find
ourselves
in
this
position,
like
you
know-
we'd
be
like
okay,
the
versions
did
be.
You
know
ffff
and
you
know
zero
zero,
zero,
zero.
Put
together
me
like
lately
and
means
that
at
the
end
I
mean
like
we
do
that,
like
this
a
fault,
we
do
have
this
all
like
desperate.
K
Quick
and
dirty
here
is
as
long
as
the
it's
a
list
of
versions,
the
interpretation
of
whatever
comes
after
the
version
link
and
sorry
comes
after
the
versions
is
going
to
be
either
completely
uninterpretable
or
just
very,
very
crusty,
very,
very
fast
I.
Don't
it's
worth
doing
in
the
version
negotiation
packet
at
all.
L
A
M
C
C
C
M
M
The
full
flavor
is
the
end
support
in
Creek
v1
and
an
Ingemar
was
tasked
to
sort
of
do
a
write-up
of
a
PR
and
and
I
think
this
is
sort
of
an
overview
of
what
that
PR
might
look
like
before
it
sort
of
formally
hits
hits
kit
before.
Maybe
it's
already
and
I've
missed
it.
Let
that's
the
purpose
of
the
discussion
so.
E
M
We
wanna
sort
of
reconfirm
that
I
guess
that
this
consensus
from
Miller
and
still
stands
nobody,
it
sort
of
objected
on
the
list,
at
least
that
I
know
of
so
my
current
stance
on
is
that
that
we
still
believe
that's
the
case,
and
then
you
know
we
want
to
keep
back
on
whether
this
you
know
way
of
doing
easier.
New
quick
is
the
one
that
should
be
going
into
the
documents
in
the
near
future.
Yeah.
N
N
How
that
should
be
the
sort
of
work
with
is
Jana,
and
then
there
was
an
email
discussion
around
the
feedback
for
not
in
the
occasion
frame
and
I.
Believe
you
have
rough
consensus
that
it
should
be
that
proposed
protocol
for
hot
that
only
counts.
Packets
is
good
enough
and
it
should
work
with
both
the
classic
Andy
and
Alvarez
based
easy
on
and
know.
N
J
J
N
J
N
Could
be
a
discussion
table
where
I
believe
in
and
we
wanted
to
make
it
as
simple
as
possible
with
alternative
flags
on?
What's
a
barber
dr.,
stone,
I
know
where
there's
another
very
early
abortion
already
stopped
over.
Had
this
extra
for
a
negotiation
stuff
I'll
have
to
indicate
the
capabilities.
What
I
mean.
J
P
M
But
there's
a
wiki
page
in
the
base
drafts
repository
that
has
the
details
of
the
proposed
PR.
It's
not
a
PR
at
the
moment,
so
I
guess
the
ask
is
that
people
review
that
I
think
in
terms
of
the
design
team
that
we
had
to
look
at
GNN
quick.
This
is
sort
of
their
proposal
for
what
what
what
they
believe
was.
It's
the
best
way
forward
and
now
we're
basically
trying
to
figure
out
whether
this
is
this
proposal.
Has
you
know
enough
consensus
that
we
can
continue
it
in
the
PR
make
sense,
yeah,
okay,.
M
I
F
F
N
M
B
B
It's
a
little
bit
easier
to
iterate
all
the
wiki
than
it
is
to
you
know,
write
on
a
pull
request
and
for
something
this
large
pull
request
is
tends
to
take
a
little
bit
of
time
and
in
raw.
If
you
machical
requests.
Where
is
this
one
wrong
so
get
it
do
it,
and
once
we
get
eleven
out,
if
you
shouldn't
be
that
much
longer,
I,
don't
know
how
long
we're
gonna
see.
No,
we
have
a
couple
of
issues
to
talk
about
today.
Maybe
we
will
try
to
run
some
of
those
into
eleven,
but
I
anticipate.
M
B
The
only
reason
well
so
I
fully
anticipate
that
people
won't
be
implementing
this,
even
after
it's
in
the
document,
for
various
reasons
right,
it's
it's
difficult
for
people
operating
in
New,
Zealand
to
market
on
whatever
else
so,
and
people
just
a
slow
right.
We
take
edges
too
much
work
to
do
so.
It's.
M
L
M
The
people
should
please
take
a
look
at
the
Box
on
the
wiki
and
and
talk
to
Ingemar
and
the
other
folks
on
the
design
team.
I.
Think
there's
a
list
of
people
want
to
really
get
involved.
You
can
talk
any
more
and
you'll
be
put
on
the
list
I'm
guessing
the
goal
is
to
sort
of
keep
our
fingers
on
the
wiki
and
then
get
it
near
PR,
our
time
frame,
with
the
understanding
that
it
may
not
end
up
in
12,
but
it
will
end
up
in
a
version
shortly
thereafter.
M
A
A
M
Go
just
sort
of
foreshadowing
that
we
will
probably
ask
everybody
to
be
very
short
and
the
microphone,
because
I
expect
the
discussion
to
take
a
while
I'm,
not
putting
that
mic
in
here.
Okay,
all.
Q
M
To
the
front
of
the
line,
and-
and
we
will
try
the
time
manage
this
pretty
aggressively
if.
A
We
have
to
okay
and
one
more
bit
of
context.
We've
been
talking
about
this
for
a
while.
Our
intent
as
chairs
is
really
to
try
and
get
a
direction
on
this
and
get
us
something
we
can
confirm
on
the
list
today.
We're
getting
the
point
where
we
can't
install
this
decision
much
longer.
So
please
keep
that
in
mind
in
the
discussion
we're
trying
to
get
to
closing
this
issue
in
some
fashion
and.
M
The
reason
we
specifically
didn't
schedule
this
discussion
at
the
dinner
room
because
we
wanted
to
have
sort
of
the
broader
participation
that
we
get
in
the
general
ITF.
But
that
is
the
reason
why
we
didn't
do
it
in
Melbourne,
for
example.
But
this
is
what
Zoe's
we've
kicked
this
around
long
enough
and
we
really
need
to
decide
what
we
want
to
do
on
this
topic
so
that
we
can
sort
of
move
on
and
free
and
punchy
cycles
for
a
bunch
of
people.
M
R
R
R
Thank
you
very
much
the
clients
it
sets.
You
know
the
inverse
of
the
last
bin,
it's
all
on
each
packet
that
it
sends.
So
what
this
does
is
a
very
simple
distributed
algorithm.
It
creates
a
square
wave.
That's
on
this
one
bit,
that's
visible
on
the
packets
in
the
flow
with
a
period
equal
to
the
application
experience
round-trip
time.
R
Why
do
we
do
this?
So
we're
preparing
for
a
post,
TCP
world
we've
seen
in
map
RG
anywhere
between
five
and
seven
percent
of
quick
I've
heard
on
some
links
that
the
amount
of
quic
is
much
larger
than
seven
percent
of
the
traffic?
That's
crossing
that
link.
There
is
the
ability,
based
on
the
information
radiated
off
of
TCP,
to
do
lightweight,
efficient
RTT
estimation
on
arbitrary
aggregates
of
traffic.
As
quick
traffic
replaces
TCP
traffic.
This
visibility
goes
away.
R
We
got
a
lot
of
use
cases
enumerated
in
the
spin
bit
draft
draft
from
a
quick
spin,
zero
one
basic
Internet
me
and
intradomain
troubleshooting
home
network
troubleshooting
buffer,
boil
mitigation
for
mobile
networks,
or
to
actually
want
to
note
that
in
the
the
hackathon
this
week
we
actually
built
a
real
buffer
bloat
mitigation
simulation
emulation.
That
shows
that
this
actually
reduces
our
TT
for
all
of
the
flows
over
some
of
these
links
significantly
and
internet
measurement
research.
How
does
it
work
I'll?
Do
the
slides
versus
the
interpretive
dance
I
can
do
the
interpretive
dance
later?
R
If
it's
not
clear,
the
client
starts
sending
once
they
start
sending
of
short
packets
with
short
headers.
It
puts
spin
zero.
The
server
basically
just
reflects
spin
zero.
As
soon
as
the
client
starts
seeing
spin
zero
packets,
it
sets
spin
1.
The
server
reflects
backspin
1.
The
client
sees
that
spin
zero.
So,
basically
you
see
all
of
the
packets.
In
flight,
in
the
flow
kind
of
pulse
between
spin
1
and
spin
0,
and
the
period
of
that
is
the
RTT
so
how
this
works
if
you're
doing
unidirectional
one
point
measurement.
R
R
With
bi-directional
one
point
measurement:
you
can
actually
compare
the
square
waves
on
the
upstream
and
the
downstream
side
and
you
can
separate
the
components
of
RTT,
so
you
can
know
how
much
of
the
RTT
is
attributable
to
between
the
observation
point.
The
client
in
the
observation
point
in
the
server.
Does
it
work?
Yes,
it
does.
Our
student
Pete
do
very
has
implemented
this
in
minke.
We've
actually
had
three
other
implementations
of
this
at
the
hackathon.
The
implementation
effort
is
trivial.
R
Basically
so
Pete's
a
pretty
smart
guy,
but
he'd
never
seen
go
and
he'd
never
seen
mink
and
within
the
first
45
minutes
he
had
a
working
spin
bit.
It
took
him
another
couple
of
weeks
he
had
mink
running,
but
that
the
spin
bit
was
actually
spinning
the
spin
signal
you
get
really
high
resolution
information
about
the
RTT
experience
by
the
end
point
applications.
One
of
the
things
that
surprised
us
is
due
to
act,
timing
and
quick.
R
The
information
that's
available
at
the
receiver
from
the
spin
bit
is
better
than
the
information
that's
available
in
the
AK
screen
from
the
spin
bit
as
a
with
respect
to
the
RTT.
You
get
more
RTT
samples
from
from
this
method.
Does
it
work
in
networks
that
are
not
perfect?
Yes,
it
does.
The
signal
will
start
to
overestimate
RTT
slightly
when
you
see
heavy
loss
and
when
you
see
reordering
you
get
on
some
loss
of
fidelity
where
you
get
edges
back
and
forth.
This
is
a
clear
fun
question.
R
Q
R
Okay,
so
basically
the
the
spiky
orange
stuff
here
is
so
what
we
have
is
a
client
connecting
to
a
server
and
uploading
data
right.
So
it's
it's
the
reverse
of
the
way
that
this
usually
works,
but
you
can
just
switch
the
things.
This
is
the
art.
This
is
the
spin
bit
information
available
at
the
sender
side
and
the
moving
minnow,
and
so
this
green
line
underneath
here
is
just
a
just
a
minimum
filter
right.
R
This
is
it's
like
the
the
linear,
smoothing
filter
that
TCP
uses
right
so,
like
the
the
the
unsmooth
TCP
RTT
is
spiky
like
this
as
well
down
here.
This
is
the
server,
so
the
data
receiver
side,
extreme
information
about
its
RT
T's
and
the
green
here
is
the
moving
minimum.
So
you
see,
the
resolution
is
lower.
Z.
R
F
F
R
F
Wait
yes
and
I
think
why
the
children
client
differ:
I'm,
just
stupid,
yeah
I,
actually.
R
J
F
R
So
in
the
world,
with
the
sort
of
the
current
ten
version
of
the
draft,
the
packet
numbers
are
still
in
the
clear,
so
it's
very
easy
to
use
packet
number
information
to
reject
reordered
edges
and
to
detect
Lawson
to
reject
the
edges
where
there's
loss.
So
if
you
have
packet
numbers
that
increment
by
one
per
packet
and
are
in
clear-text,
then
this
signal
is
very
robust.
If
we
encrypt
the
packet
number,
we
can
talk
about
that
in
the
backup,
so
yeah.
In
conclusion,
we've
spent
about
you're
talking
about
this.
R
We
spent
a
few
months
implementing
it
and
getting
of
experience
with
it
in
real
networks,
as
well
as
an
emulator
network.
So
Pete
has
a
stack
of
paper
about
this
big
filled
with
plots
with
various
sort
of
loss
and
reordering
models.
It
turns
out
that
this
actually
gives
you
pretty
good
RTT
information.
All
the
way
down
to
the
point
where
you
drive
the
transport
protocol
into
the
ground,
we
actually
had
to
disable
flow
control
and
congestion
control
in
order
to
keep
it
to
get
it
to
keep
sending
packets.
R
In
order
to
to
look
at
some
of
the
points
in
this,
this
network
impairment
space,
it's
minimal
overhead.
We
have
one
bit
if
we're
grouping
the
packet
number,
we
can
talk
about
other
options.
It's
very
high
fidelity,
it's
an
explicit
signaling
approach
that
replaces
an
implicit
signaling
approach.
It
has
minimal
privacy
impact,
as
we
saw
from
the
the
RTT
DT
in,
was
that
frog
or
Singapore
yeah.
So
from
a
while
ago.
It
does
what
it
says
on
the
tin.
It
replaces
on
path
visibility
into
the
RTT
in
a
world
where
removing
from
TCP
to
quick.
R
R
T
R
R
So,
if
your
so
are
you
talking
about
20
percent,
random
loss
or
20
percent
burst
loss?
That's
usually
a
packet
pleaser
and
okay
yeah.
So
when
you
see
burst
loss,
it
goes
from
sort
of
the
gray
line
here
to
the
blue
line.
Here
you
you
get
essentially
overestimation
of
the
RTT,
because
you're
just
missing
the
edge
right,
so
yeah
the
edges,
the
edge
that
you
see
is
delayed.
R
There
are
so
the
edge
bit
and
status
bit
things
here.
Actually
you
know,
I
should
probably
explain
those.
So
these
are
things
that
we
started
looking
at.
In
order
to
prepare
this
to
be
useful
in
an
encrypted
packet
number
world,
the
status
bits
essentially
reject
all
of
the
edges
that
are
lost.
You
can
also
do
this
with
packet
numbers,
and
then
you
get
basically
up
to
the
redline.
R
The
reason
that
the
redline
looks
better
than
the
vanilla
without
loss
line
here
is
it's
actually
rejecting
some
of
the
edges
that
are
further
invariance
right,
like
so
the
when
you
start
rejecting
lost
edges,
you
get
fewer
samples,
which
means
your
variance
goes
down.
So
you
get
less.
You
get
less.
This
error.
Okay,.
R
Vanilla
without
losses
actually
without
looking
at
the
packet
number,
okay
yeah.
So
if,
if
you
have
a
good,
if
your,
if
your
network
is
running
well,
you
don't
need
to
look
at
the
packet
number.
You
can
basically
just
look
at
the
the
raw
series
of
edges
and
you're
going
to
have.
You
know
few
enough
of
those
are
going
to
be
offset
or
lost
that
it's
not
going
to
affect
the
aggregate
that
much.
U
R
V
R
Looks
like
this,
so
basically,
what
happens
is
you
and
so
with
very
low
RTT?
We
did
pretty
much
everything
with
forty
milliseconds
that
was
sort
of
a
baseline
with
lower
RTT.
You
actually
get
less
absolute
error
because
the
only
like,
if
you
do
like
a
single
edge
reorder,
you
just
get.
You
know
the
you
get
a
you
know
a
spike
of
one
back
to
zero
and
then
back
to
one
you
get
the
an
RTT
measurement
which
is
pretty
close
to
zero.
It's
the
inner
pocket
time
great,
we
40,
millisecond
or
RTT.
R
R
V
R
Short
header,
packets,
right
B,
the
idea
is
the
long
header
packets
are
one
you
have
like
you
have
the
handshake.
You
can
just
basically
to
your
handshake,
RTT
estimate,
the
normal
way
to
you,
don't
have
any
of
those
of
those
packets.
Three.
What
we
really
you
know
that
the
point
of
this
is
to
create
samples
of
the
rtt
either
that
you
can
use
for
a
running
time.
Series
analysis
of
a
single
flow
if
you're
doing
Diagnostics
or
if
you're
doing,
base
lining
or
measuring
you're
gonna.
R
R
You
for
leading
into
one
of
my
one
of
my
backup
slides,
so
this
is
an
enhancement
that
we
looked
at
called
the
edge
valid
signal.
So
what
happens
here
is
that
each
so
okay,
first
of
all,
I'll
say
if
the
packet
numbers
are
in
the
clear.
The
entire
path
has
enough
information
to
detect
upstream
loss
and
reordering
of
an
edge.
So
it
has
enough
information
to
determine
completely
whether
an
edge
is
good
or
not.
R
When
you
have
heavy
loss
and
heavy
reordering,
you
tend
to
get
many
fewer
samples,
but
for
any
flow
that
is
able
to
keep
set.
If
the
network
conditions
are
such
that
the
flow
is
able
to
keep
sending,
we've
never
seen
a
situation
that
it
that
we
have
to
drop
all
of
the
samples
right.
We
still
have
visibility
into.
R
What's
going
on
to
that
flow,
the
sample
rate
of
that
flow
is
itself
like
the
number
of
good
samples
versus
the
bad
samples
is
itself
an
indication
as
to
how
much
network
difficulty
that
flow
is
seeing
great
with
the
valid
edge
signal
which
we
looked
into
more
because
it
looked
like
the
we
were
moving
toward
consensus
on
encrypting
the
packet
numbers,
so
we
spent
some
time
looking
into
this
one
with
the
edge
valid
signal.
There's
a
counter
that
goes.
It
counts
up,
0,
1,
2,
3.
R
If
you
add
two
bits
to
the
signal,
what
we
saw
in
this
case
is
we
had
two
like
I
said
we
had
to
disable
flow
control
and
disable
congestion
control
and
send
it
a
constant
rate
in
order
to
get
it
to
keep
generating
traffic
at
some
of
these
points
in
the
space,
because
we
were
doing
like
10
millisecond
RTT
with
10
millisecond
jitter,
so
random
packet
delivery
order
that
you
know
the
transport
falls
over
at
that
point
right.
The
diagnostic
is,
the
network
is
so
screwed
up
that
the
transport
stops
sending
rate
so
I.
R
W
R
R
There's
another
enhancement
where,
basically,
you
have
a
two
bit
spin
that
counts
up
one
two
three
and
any
time,
and
so
the
end
points
of
course
know
that
an
edge
is
valid
or
not
because
they
have
access
to
the
clear
tox
packet
number.
So
they
know
whether
or
not
an
edge
that
they're
seeing
is
is
valid
or
not.
R
You
can
use
this
that
spins
one
two
three
and
then
takes
an
additional
code
point
zero,
that
it
sends
for
an
entire
half
RTT
to
say
the
last
edge
that
I
sent
was
bad,
so
measuring
this
is
a
little
bit
harder.
We
have
not
yet
shown
that
it
gives
you
data
that
is
as
good
as
the
three
bit
spin,
but
it's
in
the
in
the
ball.
Thank
you.
R
That's
out
of
scope
for
this
disgrace
out
of
scope
for
this
discussion
me
I
may
I
may
I
may
push
an
idea,
though
Somaly
V
the
edge
valid
sick.
We
have,
we
haven't
done
the
work
yet,
but
we
have
an
intuition
that
the
edge
the
series
of
valid
and
invalid
edges
will
give
you
some
basic
information
about
loss
or
reordering.
R
It
won't
give
you
information
about
which
it
is,
but
it
will,
if
you
see,
sort
of
the
the
valid
invalid
edge
series,
you
can
derive
some
information
about
loss
reordering
from
that
we
haven't
done
the
work.
Yet
that's
that's
future
work,
but
it
won't
give
you
information
about
very
low
loss
rates
like
if
your
loss,
if
your
edge
loss
probability,
is
below
a
threshold.
You
don't
get
any
loss
information,
but
if
your
loss
probability
is
high
enough,
you
are
losing
edges.
F
R
X
R
J
J
E
Y
Case
does
that
bursty
traffic
case
become
more
important
because
it
seems
like
if
you're,
switching
back
and
forth
through
which
path
you're
sending
things
on
then
you
may
want
to
be
careful
not
to
be
having
people
observe
stuff
on,
because
it'll
each
of
those
paths
may
look
like
it.
First,
you
for
some
great
can.
R
R
T
V
R
A
Yeah
and
you
can
always
help
yeah
yeah
all
right
so
now
we're
gonna
go
into
the
discussion,
face
the
non
clarifying
phase
so
just
to
give
people
a
little
context.
As
Brian
said,
we've
been
talking
about
this
for
a
long
time.
It's
been
somewhat
contentious
than
working
group
for
a
fair
amount
of
time:
good
positioning
Brian,
we
spooled
up
a
design
team
to
evaluate
especially
the
privacy
implications
of
the
spin
bit
a
one
bit
spin
bit
and
the
the
result
of
that
was.
A
They
came
back
and
they
said
they
couldn't
identify
and
he
concrete
privacy
issues
with
the
one
bit
spin
bit.
We
had
some
concerns
about
whether
the
data
generated
by
the
spin
bit
was
usable,
Brian's
just
gone
through
the
experimentation
and
the
research
they've
done
around
that,
and
so
now
we're
in
a
position
where
the
working
group
needs
to
decide.
Do
we
want
to
add
this
Ben
bit
to
the
specification
in
some
form,
and
so
that's
the
scope
of
discussion.
A
A
K
The
amount
that
this
seems
to
me
to
leak
compared
to
say
the
the
information
already
available
on
geolocation
is
just
extraordinarily
small,
in
my
opinion,
for
the
threats
that
we
considered-
and
this
does
seem
to
provide
a
very,
very
useful
set
of
signals,
in
particular,
I'm,
very
pleased
with
two
design
points
here,
one
that
this
is
in
the
control
of
the
sender.
This
is
designed
so
that
the
sender
does
all
of
the
the
setting
and
all
the
server
does
is
reflect
on.
K
The
advantage
of
that
is
that
the
sender
remains
in
control
of
whether
or
not
this
is
on,
and
although
the
receiver
can
decide
not
to
reflect
those
set
everything
to
0
as
well,
there's
a
good
bit
of
of
agency
in
the
right
place.
In
my
opinion,
the
other
thing
that
I
think
is
a
very
good
piece
of
the
design
here
is
that
there
are
ways
as
we
move
forward
into
multipath
or
into
other
other
mechanisms,
to
continue
to
use
this
on
a
per
path
basis.
K
E
A
Before
you
go
because
I
know,
that's
high
cost
operation,
you
said
this,
a
lot
are
you
referring
to
and
everyone
in
the
in
the
queue
I'd
like
to
focus
a
little
bit
on?
Are
we
talking
about
the
single
bit
if
we
assume
we're
going
to
encrypt
the
packet
number?
How
do
you
feel
about
the
two
or
three
bit
solution?
1030.
K
Has
it,
which
has
an
unencrypted
packet
number,
having
looked
not
nearly
as
completely
at
the
beck
I
believe
I
believe
it
is
quite
similar.
My
intuition
is
that
by
encrypting
the
packet
number
and
going
to
the
back
we're
actually
making
an
overall
privacy
enhancement,
but,
as
I
said,
that's
an
intuition.
I
actually
haven't
done
enough
of
the
research
to
make
that
as
confidently
as
I
believe
he
has
been
able
to
make
the
assertions
he's
made
today.
Thank.
M
Z
My
main
so
I
appreciate
that
this
has
been
whittled
down
to
a
relatively
small
number
of
bits.
I
would
prefer
to
keep
it
as
small
as
possible.
Zero
would
be
great
if
we're
forced
into
having
one.
You
know
I
I,
do
appreciate
the
engineering
with
its
funding
here.
I
want
to
point
out
that
it's
not
clear
to
me.
The
discussion
earlier
was
about
bursty
traffic,
as
opposed
to
like
a
steady
flow.
There
may
be
other
traffic
patterns
where
this
doesn't
work
as
opposed
to
flow.
Z
If
we
want
to
use
quick
in
the
future
for
non
reliable
streams,
if
the
network
operators
are
doing
bad
things
to
traffic
that
doesn't
match
what
they
think
is
the
RTT
estimate,
so
I
want
us
to
keep
those
ideas
in
mind.
If
you
think
quick
is
going
to
be
interesting
for
non
reliable
streams
as
well
think
about
what
we
might
be
doing
to
ossify,
the
network
stack
if
we
include
something
like
this.
L
Jahangir
I
actually
agree
with
what
dkg
just
said.
I
I
think
it's
important
to
consider
what
happens
in
the
ACK
rate
goes
down.
Specifically,
that
is
a
significant
value
that
we
can
provide,
but
I
stepped
up
here
to
say
something
broader
and
I
will
do
that.
I've
basically
spent
the
last
year
listening
to
arguments
and
I'm.
Her
them
from
all
over
the
place
in
its
yesterday
has
taken.
L
The
better
part
of
a
year
has
spoken
with
many
people,
including
operators,
vendors,
important
implementers
about
the
incentives,
benefits
and
deployment
stories
for
this
bit
and
I've
considered
all
of
these
carefully
from
where
I'm
seeing
it.
Now,
we
need
to
make
a
decision
now
and
I.
Think
of
this
as
an
engineering
decision,
not
a
theoretical
one
or
not
a
research
one.
L
My
informed
opinion,
based
on
all
the
conversations
I've
had
and
all
the
thinking
of
done,
is
that
we
should
not
include
this
bit
in
the
core
specifications
for
v1
I'd
be
very
happy
for
it
to
be
an
experiment
that
demonstrates
that
there's
value
and
there's
interest
and
deployment
I
think
it'd
be
very
value
to
have
an
internet
wide
experiment
that
actually
shows
some
of
these
things
and
I.
Think
this
mechanism
is
a
great
starting
point.
L
I
think
there's
some
interesting
data
here,
but
there
are
also
a
lot
of
open
issues
as
we
can
see
and
that
as
the
design
of
quick
evolves
that
will
challenge
the
assumptions
that
are
being
made
in
this
mechanism
here
and
all
of
that
points
towards
an
excellent
starting
point
for
experimentation.
But
I
don't
think
this
needs
to
be
in
the
core
specifications
now
and
I.
Don't
think
it
should
be.
AA
Kevin
Smith
Vodafone,
so
first
point
is
I
heard
an
earlier
in
a
week
about
quick
being
measured
at
about
9:10
percent
on
cellular
networks.
Certainly,
we've
measured
it
much
much
higher,
probably
40,
to
50
percent
in
many
of
our
operations,
and
so
a
privacy
aware
or
previously
compliant
spin
bit,
which
helps
us
track
and
monitor
and
measure
that
he's
very
welcome
to
the
extra
bits
one
driver
dollar
to
put
forward
is
5g
radio,
so
we
want
to
as
that
evolves,
we
want
to
get
a
feel
for
how
that's
performing
new
new
wave
lengths,
etc.
AA
AB
D
AB
V
E
V
Worry
that
we're
going
to
find
it
works
in
the
cases
where
the
network
is
behaving
and
we
don't
have
sufficient
information
to
use
it
for
debugging
the
difficult
cases
whether
a
network
is
starting
to
misbehave,
so
I
I
lean
towards
thinking
this
is
worth
doing.
I
am
unconvinced.
It
will
turn
out
to
be
as
useful
as
we
think
it
is,
but
I
think
it's
worth
doing
as
an
experiment.
E
AC
Microsoft,
so
we
have
a
general
use
case
today
in
the
cloud
where
we
want
to
measure
what's
happening
with
tenant
traffic
and
we're
doing
that
with
TCP
today
and
having
such
a
bit
would
be
extremely
useful
to
be
able
to
continue
to
do
that
with
quick.
If
we
are
looking
at
quick
as
a
replacement
for
TCP
I,
genuinely
think
that
this
will
be
useful
for
us.
AC
The
other
good
part
about
this
proposal
is
that
it's
not
compute
intensive,
so
setting
this
bit
is
not
a
big
problem
for
an
implementation
also
looks
like
the
implementation
effort
is
pretty
small,
but
as
to
the
you
know,
discussion
of
experimentation
versus
not
yeah
I
mean
we
could
make.
We
could
consider
not
making
this
part
of
the
invariance
if
we
want
to,
but
putting
this
in
version.
One
would
at
least
unblock
the
experiment
and
allow
us
to
find
out
if
this
works
well
in
practice.
AD
AE
Patrick
McManus
lines
moving
pretty
well,
that's
good
yeah,
so
I
will
take
issue
on
the
other
side
that
this
does
not
leak.
Any
interesting
data
I
think
what
it
leaks
is
obviously
RTT
and
when
I
mentioned
that
to
people
they
say
you
can
get
that
out
to
client
handshake
client
handshake.
Why
do
you
need
to
spin
it
right?
AE
Has
some
traffic
analysis
proper,
so
I
usually
don't
think
this
is
obviously
harmless
as
it
is
sometimes
presented.
I
guess
the
second
point
I
would
make
is
I
think
doing.
This
is
actually
also
fine
around
the
behavior
of
existing
pieces
of
the
TCP
echo
system
for
properties
the
TCP
never
delivered.
You
know
the
fact
that
acknowledgments
were
in
the
clear
is
simply
an
artifact
of
TCP
signal
to
the
network.
Those
are
designed
to
be
in
signals
and
I
think
making
the
minutes
actually
preserves
our
ability
to
innovate
in
all
ways
around
that.
E
I
think
we
have
compelling
evidence
that
this
works,
at
least
in
some
scenarios.
I
think
for
this
to
be.
You
really
need
useful.
We
need
first
implementation
to
support
and
we
have
that
signal
from
Mozilla
and
secondly,
we
need
to
make
this
part
of
the
invariance.
Otherwise
we
can't
rely
on
this
to
two
dimensional.
There
was
a
comment
about
the
fidelity
of
the
signal
in
loss,
hearing
order
with
environment,
with
high
loss
in
high
order,
but,
for
example,
the
mobile
network.
R
Hi
I'm
Brian
Trammell
well-well,
stating
my
my
general
deep,
deep
skepticism
about
anything
about
the
success
of
traffic
analysis.
Resistance
in
the
Internet.
There
were
three
issues
raised:
actually
I
didn't
put
names
down
so
I'm,
assuming
Jonah
was
one
of
them.
Sorry
I'm
picking
on
because
right
there.
R
So
there
were
issues
raised
about
the
spin
bit
on
partially
reliable
or
non
reliable
streams
where
there's
no
extreme
back,
ACK
elimination,
I,
don't
want
to
say
compression
or
a
coalescing
right,
because
you
know
so
basically
where
the
acknowledgement
scheduler
is
using
a
different
algorithm
than
the
one
that
TCP
is
working
right
now.
These
are
valid
concerns
but
I,
don't
think
they're
a
problem
because,
as
long
as
so
your
sampling
rate
goes
down
right,
the
sampling
rate
will
never
go
to
zero.
R
As
long
as
you
have
some
sort
of
acknowledgement,
driven
congestion
control
and
if
you
don't
have
acknowledgement
ribbon
congestion
control,
then
you
don't
really
have
much
of
a
network
left
to
measure
so
to
Patrick's
point.
So
it
basically
as
long
as
you
have
as
long
as
you
have
a
situation
where
you
will,
during
the
lifetime
of
a
given
flow
identified
by
five
people,
so
these
would
be.
These
are
not
connections.
These
would
be
subclones
in
a
multipath
environment.
We
don't
have
to
link
this
up
close
to
multipath
environment.
R
All
you
need
is
occasionally
a
low
delay
between
one
incoming
packet
and
the
other
packet
where
an
ED
transition
would
occur
in
any
flow.
That
would
contribute
to
measurement
you're
going
to
have
enough
of
these
to
generate
samples
right.
So,
if
you're,
if
you're,
trying
to
use
this
on
a
non
TCP
acknowledging
flow
to
do
per
flow
Diagnostics.
Yes,
in
certain
cases,
you
might
get
the
time
series
will
have
too
many
gaps
in
it.
R
Looking
at
how
that
moves
together
in
order
to
diagnose
the
link,
you're
still
going
to
have
enough
samples
in
order
to
be
able
to
generate
some
signal
out
of
that,
so
the
in
that
future
world
the
applicability
may
reduce,
but
for
you
know,
the
cases
that
we're
looking
at
for
sort
of
like
Network
health,
yeah
I,
don't
see
a
realistic
evolution
of
quick
for
which
that
would
go
away
with
respect
to
leaking
or
TT.
Yes,
of
course,
that's
what
it's
supposed
to
do.
R
R
As
far
as
the
information
that's
leaked,
between
streams,
I
I
want
to
dig
into
that
a
little
bit
more
I,
don't
see
it
as
a
problem
in
that,
if
you're
doing
multiple
streams
together,
you're,
basically
sort
of
obscuring
the
size
and
tiny
relationships
of
those
streams,
but
you're
still
going
to
get
this
pattern
where
you're
going
to
send
a
packet,
that's
going
to
be
an
edge
and
then
you're
going
to
get
some
sort
of
acknowledgment
or
thing
back
that
pattern.
R
A
Before
you
riku
cuz,
we
know
that's
what
you're
gonna
do
just
one
clarifying
question
in
your
proposal.
Yes,
this
is
always
opt
in
the
end.
Both
have
to
opt
in
it
is
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
people
realize
that,
even
if
we
put
this
in
the
invariance
is
not
a
guarantee
that
is
going
to
actually
have
a
wire
yeah.
R
And
I
would
actually
so
there's
been
some
other
discussion
about
the
relationship
between
this
and
greasing
and
for
for
the
common
case,
where
you're,
basically
just
trying
to
do
generate
some
RTT
samples
so
that
you
can
look
at
aggregate
s--,
individual
flows
can
probabilistically
opt
in
or
opt
out
of
this.
You
don't
need
to
negotiate
it.
Basically,
if
you
have
a
probabilistic
off
in
on
either
side,
then
you
multiply
those
two
together
and
that's
the
probability
you're
going
to
get
a
signal.
Once
you
have
the
vac,
you
can
also
probabilistically
draw
samples.
R
You
can
basically
say
here's
an
edge.
I
have
a
valid,
solid
edge.
I'm
I
only
want
to
to
expose
my
RTT.
You
have
a
target,
RTT
exposure
rate
and
you
can
drop
the
ballot
at
the
valid
edge
counter
in
order
to
meet
that
target
rate.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
we
can
do,
there's
very
fine,
grained,
endpoint
control
for
how
much
information
gets
exposed
and
I
think
that
it
for
a
creasing
standpoint.
If
you
don't
want
it
to
ossify
around,
you
always
get
a
signal.
Otherwise,
hey,
there's
something.
A
A
AF
E
AF
Like
to
add,
though,
that
we
would
definitely
opt
in
to
that
I
like
the
probabilistic
nature,
just
just
so,
everyone
knows
when
you
say
we
well
in
Microsoft,
okay,
with
our
browser
in
all
of
your
application
yeah.
So
whether
we
would
always
do
it
or
not
that's
different,
but
we
would
definitely
take
part
in
this
and
if
you
think
it's
important,
we
see
it's
useful.
The
one
very
important
reason
why
I'm
saying
pretty
confidently
yeah
for
this
we
would
have
support
interest,
is
all
the
very
extensive
privacy
analysis
it
has
been
done.
AF
AG
So
this
is
useful
and
but
I
also
think
we
should
discuss
a
bit
more
about
this
unreliable
mood.
But,
having
seen
like
what's
happening
around
the
idea
like
which
is
kind
of
becoming
the
general-purpose
transport,
you
know
you
would
like
to
do
some
media
over
quick,
maybe
unreliable
may
be
partially.
Will
good
will
work
and
I?
Have
my
colleagues
who
believes
like
similar
I
know,
collision
control
could
work
for
more,
more
reliable
and
partially
herbal
kind
of
transport.
I
don't
see!
AG
That's
the
big
issue,
but
I
do
concern
that
if
it
is
not
invariant,
if
it
is
not
in
Russian
one,
then
we
might
not
get
the
test
we
want
to
do
and
as
this
is
the
opt-in
I,
don't
see
it
as
a
big
issue.
So
if
it
is
a
Russian
one,
we
do
testing,
we
see
how
it's
working
and
we
decide
what
to
do.
If
it
is
there
and
if
it's
Achtung,
if
it's
not
feasible,
if
leaking
more
information
plans
can
always
say
no
tree,
so
I
think
it's
fine.
T
Yes,
what
it
Google
so
I
wanted
to
reiterate
the
point
about
how
sending
fewer
acknowledgments
might
actually
increase
the
RTT
signal
and
introduce
about
a
25%
noise.
Currently,
we
are
running
a
lot
of
our
clients
at
ng,
quick
with
a
only
sending
acknowledgments
four
times
per
RTT.
There's
no
other
data
descent.
So
just
like
to
be
aware,
there's
this
pear
bit
of
noise
from
a
technical
perspective.
T
T
This
is
add
one
bit
and
have
it
be
like
really
noisy
in
the
in
the
cases
when
the
network
really
degrades
it's
complete
junk,
so
I
don't
want
to
add
this
and
have
it
be
a
detriment
actively
detrimental
in
obvious
ways
that
were
aware,
so
I
was
coping
with
a
lot
of
influencers
and
a
fair
number
of
operators
and
people
seem
to
have
very
mixed
opinions
in
both
camps.
So
I
spoken
with.
Obviously,
Microsoft
said
that
they
would
implement
it.
T
I
can't
give
you
an
official
answer
for
Google
I've
talked
to
a
bunch
of
different
people,
and
people
have
different
answers,
but
I
think
we're
leaning
against
probably
not
initially,
but
maybe
it
will
run
some
experiments
but
I
think
we're
kind
of
leaning,
known
and
then
on.
The
network
operators
I
have
talked
to
a
lot
of
network
operators.
T
I
was
in
a
Northwest
month
and
I
talked
with
a
bunch
of
people
there
about
this,
and
some
people
said
this
sounds
useful
and
some
people
said
I,
don't
know
why
I
would
ever
use
that
to
monitor
and
run
my
network,
and
so
even
in
that
community
I
got
very
just
four
responses.
I
think
one
of
my
biggest
concerns
is
even
if
this
is
not
part
of
the
invariants.
If
it's
in
v1,
it's
gonna
be
an
ever-loving
pain
in
the
butt
to
change
in
the
future
and
I'm.
T
Actually,
it's
much
concerned
that
this
is
not
enough,
as
it
is
too
much.
So
my
personal
preference
is
that
we
go
along
the
direction
that
John
that
was
kind
of
indicating,
but
I
want
to
be
even
more
specific
at
one.
An
experimental
draft
I
want
Brian
to
use
more
bits.
I
want
him
to
try
to
incorporate
loss
and
I
want.
You
know,
there's
like
I,
think
five
bits
available
use
them
all
like
try
to
get
as
much
information
as
you
can
and
provide
it
to
the
network
and
try
to
figure
out
and
run
some
experiments.
T
A
T
Serverpush,
we
should
have
included
it
in
version,
one
and
I
think
like
I,
think
there's
a
bunch
of
stuff.
We
could
have
done
in
serve
approach
to
you
like
a
sperm
with
with
it
and
make
it
awesome,
and
we
just
didn't
do
the
work
before
we
shipped
it
to
like
figure
out
what
we
needed
to
make.
It
awesome
and
I
think
we're
still
at
that
stage
today,
where
we
almost
like
over
constrained
ourselves
down
to
one
bit
because,
like
no
one
wants
to
leak
anything
but
like
it's
possible.
That
is
not
useful.
T
So,
like
we
shouldn't
do
something
that
we're
not
like
really
sure
is
useful.
So
I
would
rather
the
end
points
that
think
this
is
could
be
useful,
Microsoft
included
and
cloud
environments
and
the
operators
that
that
think.
It's
useful
conduct
some
experiments
with
an
experimental
RFC
and
we
meant
an
experimental
version
and
they
use
all
the
bits
figure
out
what
they
can
do
with
them
and
come
back
and
in
version
two
we'll
figure
out
what
we
want
to
include
in
version
two
but
I
think
we
put
it
in
version,
one
we're
stuck
with
it
forever.
AH
Marcus
Lila
Eriksen
I
just
want
to
make
some
comments
on
the
usefulness
and
simplicity
of
this.
So
we
were
a
bunch
of
people
at
the
hackathon
taking
quick
stacks
we
haven't
looked
at
before,
and
we
managed
to
implement
the
bunch
of
running
versions
of
the
spin
bit.
We
got
them
to
interoperate.
We
got
really
nice
measurement
results
and
we
could
even
do
some
interesting
buffer
block
mitigation
techniques
using
this.
So
we
did
see
some
some
usefulness
already
here
and
I
also
think.
AH
One
extremely
important
thing
here
is
what
we
call
the
probabilistic
opt-in,
because,
as
I
think
we
should
do
this
and
I
think
we
should
have
probabilistic
opting
because
me,
as
a
middle
box
developer,
will
be
forced
to
do
the
right
thing
from
the
start.
Right
I
will
have
to
have
to
take
care
of
the
cases
where,
where
where
it
doesn't
flip,
as
expected
from
the
beginning,
because
this
is
how
the
protocol
would
work.
AI
F
High,
like
that,
ignorance.
F
So
I
guess
syriacus,
like
Ian,
said
my
understanding
from
Brian's
presentation
was
that
if
we
do
encrypted
sequence
number,
basically
we
need
the
back
or
even
the
physical,
because
that
summer.
AD
R
R
R
F
Right
I
mean
I
think
if
I,
if
I,
have
to.
If,
if
I
were
given
only
two
choices,
you
know
the
the
spin
bit
with
fear,
Tech's
packet
numbers
and
the
back
plus
spit.
You
know
the
vac
plus
spin
bit
with
encrypted
packet
numbers
I
would
definitely
choose
the
latter.
That
seems
like
clearly
like
has
like
superior,
like
you
know,
properties,
so
I,
I,
guess.
If
I
must
internalize
this.
F
You
know,
I
took
a
little
look
at
where
just
would
actually
go.
If
we
had
the
back,
maybe
I'm
missing
something
but
ready
used
in
rejiggering.
So
we
have
effectively
in
the
in
the
short
header.
We
have
five
fixed
bits.
The
first
one
zero
I
was
thinking
is
gonna
have
to
stay
zero.
The
second
was
the
Cape
in
which
we
actually
need.
F
We
have
this
one
one:
zero,
which
I
understand
some
of
those
things
are
being
used
for
game
box
and
maybe
whisker
around
some
movie
could
screw
around
with,
and
then
we
have
three
tape,
type
bits
which
we
don't
need
them
all
was
only
half
like
three
types,
so
probably
could
go
ahead
for
your
bits,
but
we
still
need
at
least
two
of
those
bits
and
we
could
have
one
back,
but
that
so
like,
but
the
bottom
line
here
is
that
doing
the
back
does
pretty
seriously
cut
into
our
sensibility
story
for,
like
you
know
for
like
that,
first
one
right
and
so
doesn't
say
it's
bad
idea,
which
is
to
say
like
like
it
cut,
pretty
cuts
him
pretty
seriously
and
it
makes
it
pretty
hard.
F
If
you
know
if
we
discover
that,
for
instance,
the
you
know
that
that
does
not
you
do
not
lose
your
space,
you
know
or
I'm,
going
to
do
four
bits
or
need
two
more
bits
somewhere
else
like
for
your
quick
version
to
we're,
like
you
know,
we're
kind
of
like
not
a
great
situation.
So
if
we're
gonna
include,
if
we're
gonna
include
the
back,
like,
we
better
be
pretty
sure
that
the
thing
kind
of
works
before
we
do
it,
this
is
chewing
off
like
a
lot
of
our
reading.
F
So
it
seems
to
me
that
the
back
is
kind
of
like
unbaked
at
this
moment,
so
I
personally
I
personally
find
it
like
pretty
hard
to
think
about
like
humming,
yes
or
no.
Unlike
it
proposal
includes
that
because
like
if,
like
it
turns
out
of
the
kind
of
just
like
sucks
and
like
you
know
it
Johnny
and
Ian
kind
of
suggests
that
it
might
be
bad
emissions,
then
we're
gonna
be
sad.
F
We
like
using
space
for
it,
but
if
it's
like
really
good,
then
we
might
be
happy
to
use
the
space
for
us
and
so
I,
so
I
get
I
understand.
This
feels
like
kicking
the
can
down
the
road
a
little
bit,
but
it's
not
required
for
the
invariance
that
we
know
the
answer.
This
question
and
I
wonder
if
there's
somewhere,
we
can
get
more
information
about
whether,
like
this
technique,
really
works
like
before.
We
like
make
a
decision
about
what
we're
gonna.
F
Is
it
not
gonna,
take
more
than
like
10
minutes
to
modify
the
specification
to
put
this
in?
If
we
decide
it
and
it's
not
the
Marion's
so
like
it's
not
like
a
whole
up
our
schedule,
the
flight
wait
till
November
to
decide
like
if
this
there
it
is.
The
thing
goes
yet
right,
so
I'm,
sorry
to
be
like
hey
kick
the
can
in
the
road,
but
I
find
it
very
hard
to
make
a
decision
at
this
point.
Oh
that's.
O
Well,
Brian
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
answer
that:
okay,
so
Spencer
Dawkins,
responsible
area
director,
who
has
been
mostly
hands-off
with
the
largest
group
in
transport
to
the
up
to
this
point,
but
I
do
want
to
ask
a
couple
of
curious
questions.
It's
different
and
I
was
expecting
to
ask
most
of
them
at
the
end,
but
I
think
this
one
is
probably
appropriate.
O
O
R
K
A
A
O
O
A
O
A
H
So
I
want
to
look
at
the
broader
picture
here.
Quick
is
not
the
only
udp-based
protocol
out
there
and
the
only
thing
that
we
have
in
this
for
Terror
to
identify
a
quick
method
is
a
zero
in
the
first
bit.
That's
all
we
have
connection
vibration
and
multipath
will
will
be
a
thing
with
quick-connect
migrations
version,
one
modulator,
so
the
path
would
not
necessarily
see
the
handshake,
so
only
the
middle
box
can
do
is
and
say:
oh,
this
is
zero
must
be
quick.
AJ
AJ
AJ
We
can
see
that
the
privacy
issue
is
is
not
as
as
you
know,
if
you
look
at
the
benefits
and
the
end,
the
advantages
and
the
disadvantages
I
think
the
advantage
is
kind
of
weighing
towards
the
favor
of
spin
bed.
So
we
really
should
consider
it,
and
I
would
really
like
to
see
that
in
release
one
and
also
look
at
back
as
a
potential
for
release
thanks.
J
Mia
kudamon,
so
yes,
this
is
an
experiment.
We,
as
the
University
we've
already
tried
to
look
into
this
as
much
as
we
could,
but
that's
a
test
bet.
So
we
simulated
various
traffic
conditions,
which
are
quite
unrealistic
today,
but
might
become
more
realistic
in
future.
Hopefully
not,
but
you
never
know,
and
we
can
say
it
does
work,
it
gives
you
the
information
we're
expecting
together.
So
that's
a
research
question
for
many
more
the
question
might
be:
is
this
a
useful
signal?
What
people
use
it?
J
Will
people
deploy
it,
but
we
cannot
answer
that
at
with
our
University
testbed.
You
need
the
an
operator
you
need
to
deploy
it
to
figure
out
if
it
will
get
deployed
and
also
Microsoft
will
not
be
able
to
answer
this
because
they
don't
have
a
setup
where
they
can
actually
change
both
the
client
and
the
server.
J
So
if
Google
is
willing
to
deploy
large
scale
and
extra
mint,
whether
I'm
happy,
if
not,
then
we
have
to
bake
it
into
version
one,
because
that's
the
only
way
to
get
the
experiment
that
we
want,
because
we
need
deployment
for
it
and
I
don't
really
get
the
point
about
extensibility.
If
we
figure
out
it's
not
useful
and
version
one,
let's
rip
it
out
and
version
two,
that's
what
we
have
versioning
for
and
we
can.
J
We
can't
like
we
can't
even
fit
publish
a
worship
to
with
where
this
is
the
only
change
like
this
should
be
done
really
quickly.
That's
the
extensibility
story.
We
have
so
really
we
should
put
in
a
version
one.
The
other
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
that
there's
not
a
limitation
from
the
spin
bit,
unlike
the
egg
mechanism
or
whatever
the
dependency
we
have.
Is
that
if
a
quick
is
congestion
control,
you
need
egg
feedback.
You
need
at
least
one
sing
up
around
your
claim,
or
rather
like
four,
and
that's
like
enough
for
the
spindle.
A
AK
The
whole,
lastly,
why
I
feel
sympathy
to
having
this
kind
of
serve
ability,
I,
prefer
keeping
screaming
outside
of
the
protocols,
because
not
having
from
the
spam
bed
will
help
us
ship
quick
oli,
for
example,
consider
the
interaction
with
packet
number
option
and
especially
because
it
can
be
an
extension.
It
is
easy
to
detect
with
a
client
implement
spam
it
or
not
by
looking
at
the
flow
in
packets.
AK
AE
An
interpreter
at
Google
for
various
reasons,
I've
been
looking
a
lot
at
nonparametric
estimators
of
distributions
of
various
quantities
where
this
falls
in
here
is
that
I
suspect
there's
a
lot
more
information.
You
can
get
out
of
the
Vic
about
what's
happening
in
the
network
and
is
immediately
obvious.
AE
Some
of
these
estimators
are
essentially
the
same
computational
cost
as
an
e
WMA
and
we'll
track
a
given
person.
Tolliver
distributions
are
very
very
nicely.
The
other
thing
is
the
same
estimators
work,
even
if
you
don't
hit
the
spin,
but
it's
just
more
expensive.
So
really
what
this
pimping
gets.
You
is
a
cheaper
way
of
getting
a
slightly
worse
measurement
of
the
ITT,
otherwise
have
got
by
Auto
correlating
list
the
string.
So
the
privacy
argument
is
just
not
there.
M
What
do
you
think
the
working
group
you
should
do
so
that
maybe
there's
the
question
extra
for
everybody
right,
so
we're
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
the
room.
We're
gonna
do
maybe
hums
or
show
of
hands
later,
but
but
if
the
people
in
the
my
clients
are
felt
and
I,
don't
want
to
put
you
in
a
spot
right.
If
you
don't
want
to
say,
then
that's
fine
too,
but
so
if
I
think
that's
the
question,
we
want
to
hand
sorted
a
right.
A
And
I'll
go
ahead
and
put
this
on
the
screen.
It's
this
captures
what
we
think
the
options
we've
heard
so
far
are
so,
if
you
want
to
speak
to
these
or
you
want
to
add
to
the
possibilities,
please
do
let's
not
get
too
fine-grained.
We
want
to
keep
this
relatively
coarse
grained
for
the
purposes
of
a
decision,
I
believe
adding.
AB
K
Would
you
like
me
to
give
my
comments
while
you
work
that
out,
but
yeah
that'd
be
helpful?
It
looks
like
you
might
need
a
little
moment
here,
we're
starting
a
second
stream
over
here.
Okay
Elka
wants
my
comments
then,
possibly
at
the
end,
we
can
return
to
my
question.
One
thing:
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
related
to
the
comments
that
Patrick
McManus
everybody
remembers
Patrick.
His
comments
were
some
time
ago
now
about
the
art
Roger
time
implications.
I
ran
the
design
team
for
that
and
we
could
not
find
privacy
implications
for
them.
K
But
I
want
to
to
be
clear
that
what
the
design
team
was
asked
to
do
was
to
look
for
those
implications
not
simply
to
examine
whether
or
not
this
leaked,
because
it
was
an
uninteresting
question.
The
answer
was
yes,
that
was
the
intent.
If
somebody
has
a
different
question,
for
example,
whether
the
Beck
leaks
more
or
less
than
a
sequence
number
I'd
be
happy
to
send
up
another
design
team.
K
One
I
also
wanted
to
go
slightly
into
the
question
of
ossification.
I.
Do
think
there
is
a
risk
of
ossification
here,
but
I
don't
think
it's
the
risk.
People
are
seeing
I.
Think
people
are
worried
that
if
they
put
this
into
b1,
it
will
be
hard
to
rip
out
and
will
ossify
both
the
expectations
of
the
network
operators
and
the
expectations
of
the
stack
I.
Think
the
bigger
risk
here
is
that
if
we
continue
to
push
things
into
the
network
without
explicit
signal
as
an
architectural
choice,
people
will
also
fly
into
staying
with
TCP.
K
K
AH
M
AL
M
We
just
we
are
about
to
announce
the
formation
of
a
design
team
on
the
packet
number
encryption
took
a
little
while
to
shake
out
the
the
participation
I
think
the
email
should
be
coming
as
soon
as
one
of
us
as
a
second
to
type.
So
there's
there's
a
people
that
basically
have
started
to
work
on
this
already
we're
going
to
form
one
of
those
things
that
I
can
come
back
with.
Something
looks
like
at
PR.
M
My
guess
is
that
we
would
try
to
land
this
PR
sooner
rather
than
later,
because
it
obviously
impacts
the
variance
and
therefore
my
guess
is
that
we
would
do
this
within
the
next
four
weeks.
Who's
Martin
says
it
doesn't
impact
the
invariance
okay,
well,
the
right
right.
C
A
K
A
C
Z
M
Z
M
M
Z
Actually
got
in
mind
to
respond
to
a
comment
from
Brian
few
years
ago:
Wow,
just
in
particular,
he
said
that
he
was
unconcerned
about
traffic
analysis
countermeasures
because
of
the
inevitability
of
traffic
analysis
on
Internet
traffic
and
I
well
well.
I
share
his
fear.
I
want
to
encourage
people
in
this
room
to
not
share
his
nihilism.
If
we,
if
we,
your
comment
was
it
was,
was
a
form
of
traffic
analysis,
nihilism
and
I,
don't
think
we
can
afford
to
do
that.
Z
A
A
Just
really
quickly
is
that
not
sure
what
hat
I'm
wearing
I've
heard
in
a
couple
of
the
recent
comments
of
the
assertion
that
if
we
put
it
in
v1
that
well,
if
we
don't
like
it
or
it
doesn't
turn
out
well,
we
can
just
go
and
mint
to
v2.
That's
very
true,
except
that
we
are
have
agreed
that
v1
is
primarily
about
HTTP,
so
we're
gonna
mint,
a
new
version
of
HTTP
that
uses
quick
v1.
It's
not
clear
if
the
HTTP
community
will
decide
to
adopt
a
v2.
That's
not
a
natural
transition.
O
R
Sorry,
conferring
with
the
referees
are
a
I
missed
that
point.
There
was
a
there
was
a
mention
of
20:26
I
first
want
to
apologize
to
dkg
for
encouraging
nihilism
about
traffic
analysis
for
anyone
I.
Just
please
don't
let
me
discourage
you
I.
R
You
to
do
the
research,
sorry
I'm,
pretty
firmly
on
to
here
big
bits
and
quick
v1
I
heard
a
lot
of
people.
Volunteering
me
to
do
work
if
there
is
a
an
indication
that
comes
out
of
this,
that
there
is
work
that
will
lead
to
experimentation
with
this
signaling
and
scale.
I
am
happy
to
do
that
work
if
it
comes
down
to
three
or
four
I,
don't
know
how
many
cycles
I
have
for
that.
So,
just
in
terms
of
you
know,
people
volunteer
community.
R
Some
of
them
just
want
to
let
you
know:
I
tend
to
also
agree
with
it.
Becker
I'm,
leaning
toward
spin
plus
fact,
plus
encrypted
PN,
is
the
right
way
to
go.
I
mean
I,
know
we're
not
calling
that
right
now,
I
think
that
seems
superior
to
me,
because
there
looks
like
there's
information,
the
signal
we
can
use
for
other
stuff.
R
We
haven't
done
that
work,
yet
it's
like
I
said:
what
can
we
get
out
of
the
back
of
that
that
there's
still
some
research
in
there,
but
the
explicitness
of
this
signal
I
think
is
a
gigantic
win.
So,
okay.
A
Going
to
close
or
can
I
run
back
the
fact
you
can
run
back
one
more
time.
Brian
I'd,
like
folks
to
Brian
did
something
very
nice
there,
which
was
he
expressed
what
he
preferred,
but
also
what
he
can
live
with.
Oh
look,
it's
the
screen,
so
if,
if,
if
everyone
else
can
do
that,
we
just
got
a
fairly
strong
direction
from
our
area
director
that
he
did
not
want
this
to
be
on
our
critical
path
for
shipping.
Our
deliverables
I
need
explain
why.
So,
especially
if
you
can,
you
know,
talk
to
I.
A
AM
Event,
so
my
preference
is
to
have
a
clean
version.
One
and
mechanic
depends
on
solely
on
the
encryption
of
the
packet
number
which
we
might
want
to
do
is
this
case
in
pride
systems.
Okay,
now
about
the
usage
I
mean
there
was
some
comment
about
the
network
operations
and
I
can
agree
that
not
only
I
mean
it's,
not
all
network
operators,
we
don't
go
and
network
operators
and
asking
if
they
immediately
depends
what
are
they
managing?
AM
Because
if
you
go
to
someone
just
manage
the
interface
he's
not
interested
in
TCP
at
all
and
not
about
this,
is
it
just
is
a
little
later?
But
if
you
go
to
someone
who
manage
the
operation
of
the
network
and
the
relation
whose
other
network
which
he
analyzed
on
TCP,
he
is
interested
in
being
able
to
measure
our
DTN
on
the
network.
So
it
depends.
We
are
asking
in
the.
AM
A
AM
So
the
other
point
was
about.
There
was
a
comment
about
being
able,
with
this
only
zero
to
figure
out
if
it's,
quick
and
I
think
that's
tied
also
to
the
issue
of
the
de
multiplexing
that
we
had
or
that
I
think
we
have
to
consider
how
to
put
these
bits
worse
if
we
put
them
in
order
still
to
address
I
mean
of
course,
the
moment
we
take
orders,
it's
out
the
other
bits
out
there.
We
need
to
look
at
what
are
the
right,
how
to
put
how
to
build
the
first
respite.
AM
AN
AN
Ronnie's
point
basically
to
Ian
and
others:
yeah
I
experienced
the
same
thing:
you've
go
to
Nanog
they'll
talk
to
a
lot
of
guys
who
are
peering
experts
and
bgp
experts.
They
won't
really
care
about
troubleshooting
user
funds.
That's
important
when
it
comes
to
the
pattern.
That's
changing
like
the
unreliable
streams,
the
a
production
all
the
things
that
can
change,
that's
kind
of
like
just
describing
the
day
in
the
life
of
passive
measurement
designers.
If
it
changes,
we
have
to
change
it
tomorrow,
so
I
think
that's
that's!
AN
That's
the
role
that
we're
in
following
what
others
do
you
have
to
make
the
measurements
work
if
they're
gonna
work
for
all
who
want
more
study,
Brian's
slides
did
not
cover
the
entire
gamut.
Please
read
the
memo.
One
of
the
things
that
was
studied
in
there
is
one
of
the
things
that
Andrew
brought
up.
This
word
autocorrelation,
where
you
can
just
look
at
inner
packet
times
and
tried
to
tell
what
the
round-trip
time
is
from
that
Andrew.
It's
really
hard
to
make
that
work,
and
the
draft
points
to
a
reference
for
that.
AN
It's
probably
even
harder
to
make
it
work
with
quick,
where
we
don't
understand
right
now
what
the
inner
packet
dynamics
are
gonna
be
so,
let's
not
I
mean
this
is
the
alternative
where
we
don't
get
a
spin
bit.
If
we
just
look
at
blind
packets,
can
we
measure
anything?
Probably
not,
but
that's,
research,
not
engineering.
Oh.
AN
A
If
folks,
if,
if
you
have
the
profits
for
quick
view,
when
I
would
really
like
to
hear
why
it
needs
to
be
v1
rather
than
a
negotiated
extension,
if
you
want
to
speak
to
that
briefly,
please
do
let's
get
the
large-scale
experiments
going,
that
people
would
like
to
see
sure,
but
but
that
presumes
that
people
will
actually
deploy
it
in
v1.
So,
yes,
okay,
so
the
queue
is
closed.
A
B
E
AO
Donna
I
would
support
the
additional
speed
in
the
R&D
one.
These
can
allow
the
network
operator
to
measure
not
only
the
end-to-end
on
three,
but
also
by
using
the
FSC
8321,
also
the
performance
measurement
of
it
so
important
portion
of
the
network
of
the
complete
terror
activity.
So
this
can
be
useful
for
to
expect.
Thank
you.
We're.
AC
Praveen
I
wanted
to
clarify
a
question:
the
comment
that
media
made:
we
do
run
some
large
online
services
and
we
will
be
able
to
do
such
experiments
at
scale.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
the
primary
use
case
was
the
cloud
where
you
know
we
could
run
quick
in
the
data
center
for
other
use
cases
other
than
HTTP,
because
it's
a
choppers
transport.
AC
T
Suppose
I
are
I,
think
the
option
one
into
a
facetious
because
they're
actually
joined
together.
The
version
is
not
in
the
short
header
and
the
experiment
that
Brian
is
running
uses.
The
IP
address
is
the
key.
It
is
very,
very
possible
that
we're
going
to
run
multiple
versions
even
before
we
deploy
an
RFC
version
of
quick
or
as
bad
versions.
T
The
second
point
is
that
I
don't
know
how
it
could
be
option
three
either
because
to
have
a
supported
extension,
the
middle
box
would
need
to
be
able
to
peek
into
the
initial
box
and
maintain
more
state
per
connection
that
would
also
infringe
upon.
Maybe
so
it
must
maintain
a
map
for
a
connection
ID
and
that
might
affect
the
design
decisions
in
maybe
changing
connection
ID
each
and
every
round
trip
time.
If
a
like
a
servant
and
client
wanted
to
do
that
as
a
as
a
privacy,
preserving
method,
I
have
other
points
as
well.
T
They're
gonna
make
it
brief,
I'm
concerned
about
the
differential
behavior
based
on
spin
bit
that
might
be
offered
by
network
operators
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
implications
is
that
our
network
operators
done
things
like
deployed
these
be
middle
box
proxies
before
which
I've
kind
of
sped
up
TCP
I'm,
not
I,
don't
understand
that.
Well
enough
and
I,
don't
think
that's
covered
well
enough
in
the
draft
and
I.
Don't
think
this
meets
the
engineering
bar
either
of
including
a
v1
right
now
this
was
tested.
T
For
example,
limited
situations
like
flow
control
is
disabled
version
control
is
disabled.
I
would
like
to
see
it
kind
of
test
in
real-world
traffic
environments
like
HTTP,
realistic,
h-2b
flows
among
multiple
concurrent
requests
with
HTTP
to
transports
before
it
actually
can
be
included
in
V
button,
so
I
don't
think
either
of
these
options
are
actually
like
real
options.
It's.
A
T
Format,
so
we
would
have
to
design
that
extension
format
I
just
for
this
particular
spin,
but
which
might
push
us
back
like
along
and
so
I
think
this
has
privacy
implications,
not
because
of
the
fact
that
hey
we
had.
We
need
it's
exposing
our
TT,
but
it
prevents
us
to
from
doing
all
these
other
things
in
quick,
based
on
like
the
fact
that
we
middleboxes
want
to
be
simple
and
use
an
IP
address,
a
v
double
as
a
mapping
proposal,
whereas
we're
considering
connections
is
not
quite
doubles
and
there's
a
mismatch
between
the
endpoints.
T
What
the
endpoints
consider
as
a
connection
identifier
and
what
a
middle
box
considers
an
eye
connection
identifier.
So
it
is
not
possible
to
remove
the
because
short
headers
are
supposed
to
be
small
and
is
efficient,
and
so
they
will
never
include
the
version.
So
there
could
be
multiple
versions
on
one
pipe
that
ball
and
I.
Think
that
and
it
could
be
multiple
connection,
IDs
and
five
one
five
double
as
well.
So
five
double
does
not
make
sense.
Okay,.
A
Y
Akamai
I
think
actually,
following
on
to
something
so
I
said
at
the
end,
I
think
it's
worth
thinking
about
adversarial
and
kind
of
what
some
of
the
consequences
could
be
and
I'm
curious.
What
vendors
are
thinking
about
in
terms
of
when
they
might
start
looking
at
using
this
for
controlling
flows
and
trying
to
optimize
flows
rather
than
just
using
it
for
passive
Diagnostics,
cuz
I
think
the
risk
there
has
a
significant
ossification
risk.
They
could
turn
this
putting
this
into
v1
from
being
something
that's
kind
of
a
research
experimental.
What
happens
with
it
into
something?
Y
It
really
becomes
an
engineering
question
and
that
kind
of
pushes
me,
along
with
Ian's
quest
perspective
towards
thinking.
We
should
really
experiment
more
and
figure
out
exactly
what
we
want
and
therefore
I
think
I'm
leaning
really
strongly
towards
option
three,
even
if
we
don't
know
how
to
do
the
extension
part.
Yet.
Thank
you
next.
F
Scroll
first
I
would
say
Christians
that
I
email
the
lists,
this
opinion,
which
appears
to
be
that
we
should
that
we
should
reserve
the
bits
in
this
back.
So
first,
let
me
say,
like
the
cost
here
primarily
is
I.
F
Guess
three
things
the
bits
having
to
rearrange
at
this
little
bit
to
make
room
for
this,
the
cost
of
like
doing
anything,
the
D
editorial
or
working
group
work
to
like
actually
do
the
specification
and,
of
course,
the
potential
privacy
loss
if
it's
a
problem,
so
the
second
thing,
I
would
say,
is
like
this:
entire
project
is
like,
like
some
level
experiment.
F
What
I
mean
by
that
is,
like
you
know,
we're
like
we're,
designing
this
protocol
and
then
we're
gonna
feel
pieces
of
it
and
to
see
if
they
work
properly
and
like
get
things,
don't
work
properly,
then
we're
gonna
think
about
so
like
and
and
then
that
could
still
happen
between
now
and
v1.
So
I,
don't
like
actually
like
III
feel
like
a
little
bit
like
the
you
know
like
we
don't.
F
This
works
like,
if
our
objection
to
know
if
this
works
the
way
everybody
thinks
it
would
be
good
idea
if
it
did
work,
the
the
weight
is
even
with
that
is
to
like.
Actually
it's
like
put
in
the
protocol
and
like
I'm,
like
lucky
old
acquaintance,
even
worked
or
not
so
I
mean
like
yeah,
otherwise,
you'll
never
know
if
it
works.
So
so
I
guess
it
seems
like
if
you've
just
she
needs
is
like
bad
idea
in
principle.
That's
one
thing:
if
there's,
actually
we
don't
for
works,
we
should
like
do.
F
They
think
we're
doing
everywhere
else.
I
guess
one
thing
I
hope
Brian
will
say
when
he
gets
up
because
I'm
actually
not
particular
clear
on
this
point
is
I.
Don't
understand,
I'd
understood
that,
basically,
if
clients
didn't
participate,
that
Brian's
measurement
framework
was
able
to
process
that
that
fact
properly
and
was
able
to
nor
the
clients
won't
resume
or
participated,
and
if
that's
true
I,
don't
see
why
we
need
negotiate
extension
clients
either.
F
Do
it
or
don't
do
it
was
over
as
your
do
or
they
don't
do
it
and
like
rise
measurement
framework
figures
it
out
it?
That's
not
true
I'd
like
to
understand
that
point,
but
if
it
is
true,
then
these
questions
and
Russia
extensions
are
irrelevant
and
the
only
question
is:
do
we
define
the
submit?
Do
we
make
room
for
the
bit
and
and
have
somewhere
to
find
the
semantics
of
them.
D
Mike
they
ship
Akamai
I'm,
actually
here
to
make
two
observations
about
the
short
header
and
the
first
bite.
First
off.
The
signal
is
quick,
actually
is
not
just
for
that
structure
to
0.
You
have
0
something
1,
1
0,
as
currently
defined
in
v1.
So
the
signal
that
it's
quick
v1
is
4
bits
out
of
the
first
byte
of
those
remain.
H
D
D
That,
anyway,
so
we're
not
doing
anything
with
those
type
bits.
I
would
I'm
kind
of
leaning
toward
3/8
that
we
block
those
bits
off
as
reserved
and
let's
do
an
experimental
RFC.
If
people
want
to
play
with
it
bond
and
wool
room,
we'll
figure
out
if
it's
something
we
want
to
make
into
v2
in
the
future.
So.
A
AP
The
ability
AT&T
it's
been
a
long
exercise
but
I
think
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
I
wanted
to
say.
One
is
related
to
architectural
principles.
That
discussion
took
the
right
direction,
basically
with
the
opt-in
and
with
the
explicit
signaling
and
I,
think
it's
it's
the
right
way
to
to
avoid
guessing
in
future
protocols
and
the
second
one
is
more
process
between
the
between
the
experimentation
and
in
the
the
ability
to
to
do
the
privacy
analysis.
I
think
these
were
two
things
that
kind
of
gave
proof
that
that
this
thing
makes
sense.
AP
L
To
me,
as
we
go
through
this
conversation,
that
there
are
common
cases
here
and
there
are
edge
situations
that,
as
we
start
writing
this
up,
the
shoes
list
is
going
to
explore
again
and
I'm.
Terrified
of
that.
We
just
spend
a
whole
week
trying
to
really
trim
it
down
and
really
get
it
under
control,
and
if
you
have
to
repeat
the
exercise
again
and
again,
that's
not
a
farm.
L
L
We
don't
know
if
that's
going
to
be
interpreted,
subsequent
versions
of
quake
or
not
any
design
that
we
put
in
here
will
have
implications
on
what
we
end
up
doing
so
again,
if
we
put,
if
you
go
to
number
three
I,
am
again
I'm
starting
to
get
concerned
that
we
end
up
poking
other
things
that
we
want
to
do,
and
it's
going
to
delay
all
that
other
work
that
we
need
to
do.
It's
not.
A
L
R
R
If
we're
looking
at
going
too
far
in
packet
numbers
aren't
encrypted
packet
numbers.
We
have
these
bits
in
type
that
v1
will
not
use
for
anything
anyway
and
we
will
have
to
grease
them,
and
if
you
want
to
grease
them,
you
can
spin
them
to
grease
them
right.
You
can
probabilistic.
This
is.
This
is
useful,
grease
right.
This
is
one.
R
Okay,
yeah
right
yeah
great,
so
we
can
have
that
discussion
over
if
you're
the
I
continue
to
believe
that
the
two
is
the
right
choice
here
again:
spend
it
back
encrypted
packet
number
with
respect
to
well
three
would
be
an
extension,
that's
not
a
negotiated
extension.
What
I
would
want
to
see
with
3a
is
for
thingy
the
chorus
back
to
essentially
refer
to
the
experimental
document
non
normatively.
To
say
this
is
the
experiment
that
we're
using
this
foreign
v1.
R
If
we
do
an
experimental,
but
the
document
with
reserve
fits
otherwise,
you
know
there's
no
reference
to
it
and
basically
the
people
who
are
going
to
know
what's
going
on
about
that
other
people
in
this
room.
The
other
thing
that
I
would
like
is
through
a
wiki
or
some
other
thing
or
maybe
on
the
list,
is
to
get
a
feeling
of
how
many
people
would
it
would
participate
in
the
experiment
in
three,
because
I
don't
need
an
experimental
extension
to
do
it
myself.
I.
A
You're
off
the
clock,
yes,
I,
keep
on
hearing
people
say
we
should
put
it
in
quickly.
One,
and
my
impression
is,
is
that
they
think
that
by
doing
so,
they'll
get
deployment
of
the
spin
bit
and
I.
Don't
know
that
that's
the
case,
so
I
need.
R
R
A
Deployment
right
so
so
you
know
chair
head
on
so
far,
I've
heard
a
number
of
people
say:
I
prefer
quick
v1,
but
I
haven't
heard
structured
are
even
as
to
why
I
have
heard
a
lot
of
people
also
say:
I,
don't
want
it
to
put
it
in
v1
and
the
arguments
seem
to
be
more
structured
for
for
not
putting
it
in
there.
So
if
we
can
explore
that
relationship,
that
would
be
really
helpful
to
help
us
make
a
decision.
Yes,
I
mean
that's
my
answer.
Okay!
Yeah!
Thank
you.
That's
helpful.
We.
AI
J
On
it
on
to
that
one
say:
one
thing
is
more
deployment
on
the
endpoints,
but
the
other
thing
is
also
what
support
says
like
you
also
need
a
way
to
actually
know
where
the
bits
are
in
read
them.
Otherwise
the
experiment
is
useless.
Given
we
don't
even
know
how
the
extendibility
wood
frame
would
look
like
I,
don't
think
that
it's
actually
an
option,
it's
not
an
option.
I
understand
at
least
I.
O
J
E
AH
Reference
I'm,
not
writing.
The
preference
is
option.
2
main
reason
is
I
wanted.
Just
like
Brian
said:
I
want
a
reasonable
sample
size
and
it
because
to
experimental
would
be
there
won't
be
enough
and
the
reason
we
actually
do
this
now
with
TCP
X
and
we
use
it
for
early
detection
of
congestion
and
that
in
turn
then
feeds
upgrading
the
network.
So
suppose
the
point
is,
if
you,
if
you
make
us
blind,
then
we
ever
have
to
it's
sort
of
just
in
time.
You
know
efficiently
cost
effective.
Management's
of
a
network
is
about
just-in-time
upgrades.
AH
AQ
You're
going
I
want
to
come
back
to
this
point
that
was
just
made
about
what
we
can
gain
from
TCP
sequence
numbers,
and
some
of
it
could
occurs
to
me
that
if
you
had,
if
you
look
at
a
flow
of
TCP
sequence,
numbers
and
X,
you
are
inferring.
It
signal
directly
from
stuff
that
happening
that
is
making
up
the
extra
data
exchange,
whereas
spinned
it
is
an
independent
signal,
irrespective
of
your
other
sexual
connection,
progress.
So
you
can
tweak
that
way
more
independently.
AQ
It
seems
so,
and
so
it
looks
like
we
are
all
assuming
well-behaved
clients
that
don't
try
to
game
whatever
the
operator
does
think
about
people.
Looking
at
oh,
we
are
going
to
do
measurements,
but
probably
you're,
not
just
going
to
do
measurements
and
say:
oh,
we
have
this
RTT,
but
you're
also
going
to
have
certain
assumptions
or
maybe
reactions
so
I'm
wondering
whether
we
could
take
us
take
some
time
to
investigate
what
in
the
video
flow
can
do
by
lengthening
your
period,
which
is
easy
to
do.
AQ
Maybe
short,
shortening
this
to
chortling
you're
expected
RTT
is
more
difficult
to
do,
but
if
you
have
one
or
more
one
client
one
connection
is
the
set
of
colluding
ones
how
they
can
actually
manipulate
or
drive
at
work.
Behavior
I,
don't
think
this
has
been
investigated,
and
so
we
are
just
making
too
many
positive
assumptions
at
this
point.
So
this
is
why
I
will
probably
for
my
site,
even
though
I
don't
have
a
strong
feeling,
it
I,
don't
have
any
any
bets
in
here.
AQ
A
Thank
you
you're,
it's
one
of
the
mentioned
when
we
set
up
this
conversation
a
few
months
ago.
That
was
one
of
the
items
that
we
called
out
explicitly.
Was
you
know?
How
can
this
signal
be
gained?
What
are
the
systemic
effects
and
we
didn't
really
see
any
response
to
that.
So
I
share
your
frustration
that
that
wasn't
explored.
A
T
I
wanted
to
comment
on
the
negotiated
extension
and
the
exact
approach
that
I
am
proposing.
We
we
use,
we
have
a
way
to
change
quick,
it's
called
person
ago.
She
ation.
This
is
an
excellent
opportunity
to
use
it
right
out
of
the
box,
opposed
to
waiting
and
like
trying
to
MIT
B
to
and
realizing
it
doesn't
actually
work.
So
I
actually
think
this
is
an
excellent
test
that
our
version
negotiation
is
actually
functional,
and
so
I'm
specifically
saying
we
should
like
define
a
four
byte,
quick
version.
T
That
is
run
concurrently
with
quick
v1,
and
you
say
that
you
are
using
that
version,
which
is
in
the
clear
and
like
very
easy
to
look
at
assuming
you
actually
do
get
to
an
intake
from
a
middle
box
perspective.
Then
that
means
you
are
using
the
spin
bet
and
define
our
bits
and
defines
how
you
are
using
them
very
clearly.
So
there's
no
none
of
this
like
we
might
be
greasing
it.
T
Well,
so
none
of
these
things
work
good
connection.
Okay,
well,
I
mean
worried
that
it
doesn't
work
any
better
or
worse
with
connection
origin.
It
is
this
effectively
what
you're
proposing
three
be
sorry
I'm,
saying
that's
my
embodiment
of
how
I
think
three
should
work.
Okay,
that's
what
I
intended
three
to
be
yeah
I
want
I,
just
want
to
mint
to
version
and
say
what
it
means.
So,
the
next
part
of
what
this
is
like
from
the
version
you
can
go.
K
Do
you
have
a
clarifying
question?
You
you
said
earlier
that
if
HTTP
was
defining
a
version
to
run
over
quick,
would
in
a
case
like
this
it'd
be
defined
to
run
over
all
versions
of
quick
of
this
type,
because
that
makes
a
serious
difference
on
the
points
the
operators
have
made
about
the
sample
size.
That's
necessary
for
this
to
be
useful
for
them
to
do
their
work.
AD
D
AR
Privacy,
goo
I,
got
up
to
say,
I,
think
Google
Mark
said
I,
don't
think,
there's
much
of
a
difference
between
gonna
be
one
and
and
not
making
experimental
in
terms
of
how
much
dependable
yet
I,
don't
think
if
being
in
v1
will
influence
our
decision
to
it.
So
my
preference
is
for
three
a
or
three
B
or
something
around
three
L
just
want
to
make
one.
Other
point
is
one.
R
R
J
Me
accouterment,
so
the
difference
is
that
was
using
the
version
number.
You
actually
also
give
the
link,
assuming
where
someone
would
be
the
server
has
to
support
it.
Then
using
the
version
number
means
the
the
server
can
be
chilled
and
say:
I
want
to
use
the
non
spin
bit
version,
but
that
also
might
cost
you
around
return
range.
Okay,.
A
J
R
R
I
really
like
Ian
I,
like
the
more
I
think
about
it,
the
more
I
like
Ian's
proposal,
separate
version
was
Bend.
It's
because
one
of
the
things
that
scares
me
about
quick
v1
is
that
we
are
going
to
have
a
lot
of
version
ago.
She
ation
experience
with
the
implementations
that
we've
done
here,
because
we're
doing
first
negotiation
as
part
of
our
Arab
testing
and
there's
not
going
to
be
a
lot
of
exercise.
The
first
negotiation
next
mechanism
in
the
wild
so
having
to
like
I've,
been
saying
for
a
while.
R
R
One
of
the
network
operator
who
is
deploying
boxes
that
will
let,
through
quickly
one
spin
and
knock
quickly,
one
who
actually
wants
the
visibility
that
you
get
by
looking
at
TCP
and
isn't
just
walking
quick
to
go
to
TCP
is
not
doing
the
right
thing
for
their
goals.
Right,
I
think
the
the
risk
of
blocking
quick
v1
in
in
favor
of
quickly
one
spin
is
so
much
less
than
the
risk
of
just
saying
at
one
block
and
go
with
zzp
that
it's
not.
AD
A
L
L
C
M
Have
to
do
it
must
be,
it
can't
be
before
us,
because
it's
requires
we
want
to
be
done,
but
so,
if
we
want
needs
to
basically
be
done
and
then
because
this
is
going
to
be
a
dip
that
says
you
know
you
take
you
gone.
This
is
the
new
version
that
then
you
spin
stuff.
So
therefore
you
know
it's
in
hand
or
effort,
so.
F
I
guess
I'm
still
confused
about
what's
being
discussed
frankly,
yeah
amazingly
enough,
I
mean
if
it's
in
so
we've
already
agreed
that
it.
If
it
were
to
be
in
v1,
it
will
be
optional
to
actually
execute,
and
so,
if
it
were
in
d1,
then
you
would
like
only
have
a
no
wire
signaling.
You
either
send
spin
bit,
so
you
would
not
sense
movements
and
so
there's
a
question
about
whether
you
wish
to
have
an
explicit
network
signal
that
what
you're
saying
spin
bits
or
not-
and
if
you
do,
then
we
should
have
one.
F
If
you
don't
think
we
shouldn't
have.
If
we
don't
need
one,
then
there's
no
point
putting
it
in
there's
no
point
having
a
sever
version
and
if
we
do
need
one
all
arguing
a
second
that
a
separate
version
is
stupid,
but
but
to
make
that
some
perverse
to
me
even
to
make
these
other
versions
can
be
plausible.
We
have
to
make
sure
that
we
remove
the
header
to
flip
those
bits
and
will
not
screw
around
with
those
bit.
F
We
don't
like
colonize
those
bits
in
you
know
if
you
want,
and
so
I
like
just
don't
see
much
material
difference
between,
but
between
the
more
the
worker
will
have
to
do
in
the
like,
in
the
case
where
it
goes
in
v1
and
the
case
where
there
was
a
separate
version.
If
no
one
gives
a
about
you
passing
alike
at
all,
because
specifying
that
these
the
bits
is
not
difficult
separately.
F
If
we
do
think
it's
important
to
have
a
new
tab,
I
solicit
I
mean
indications
on
the
wire
like
please,
let's
not
do
a
separate
version
like
the
idea
we
have
to
have
like
orthogonal
like
if,
like
a
comet
or
explosion,
two
versions
of
your
leadership
feature,
like
is
if
I
got
trivial
features,
is
crazy.
That's
why
we
that's
why
we
reverse
reverse
the
extension.
Sorry,
an
extension
negotiation
mechanism
in
the
first
place.
This
is
a
classic
use
of
why
you
want
to
set
your
negotiation
if
you
want
to
have
like.
F
AM
Gavin
first
of
all,
3b
is
still
experimental
and
I
was
not
sure
if
I
understand
that,
because
it
I
is
it
a
regular
version
understand,
will
it
be
different
transport
version
or
is
it
be
an
experimental
RFC?
That's?
Why
is
it
creepy
and
not
a
separate
I?
Didn't
that's
just
to
preserve
the
numbering,
so
people
don't
get
convulsion.
A
AM
A
AM
Point
of
view
two
and
three
be:
are
okay,
the
reason
for
three
that
the
experimental
I
think
that
I
will
talking
about
the
transport,
but
this
transport
is
typically
some
other
stuff
about.
They
are
defining
what
transport
are
used
in
a
network
and
they
will
reference
such
documents
and
they
can
reference
the
document
that
we
have
without
being
bit
or
we
spin
bit,
but
they
need
the
document
to
reference
for
them
and
and
I
assumed
that
Winfrey
being
we
means
that
people
they
will
progress
they
in
parallel
and
not
see
Quinn
should
be
well.
AM
T
Super
tiger
so
I
think
that
3b
is.
There
are
a
lot
of
dragons
lurking
in
there
which,
like
it
seems
quite
simple
as
its
described,
but
it's
actually
like
probably
way
more
complicated.
It's
not
as
simple
as
the
mechanism
Brian
described
his
captives
like
just
look
at
the
five
double
and
you're
done.
T
But
I
think
that,
as
heads
proved
like
this
cannot
be.
This
cannot
be
a
separate
version
and
this
cannot
be
made
birdie
there.
So
we
need
to
come
up
with
a
separate
version
mechanism.
We
need
to
put
in
the
work
to
do
that
if
we
are,
if
we
want
the
propose
of
this,
and
this
might
push
back
other
work
in
the
long
header
format.
T
I
wanted
to
address
Marie's
comment
about
the
extra
round
trip.
I
was
going
to
exhibit
in
in
practice.
I
expect
most
experiments
at
least
initially
to
use
the
L
surfers
advertisement
mechanism,
and
so
the
peer
would
just
learn
about
it
by
HTTP
and
then
like
do
it
the
first
time.
Basically,
we
just
not
do
it
once
so.
I,
don't
like
there
be
actually
any
practical
hit
on
user
experience
and
then
on
the
the
idea
of
negotiating
extensions.
T
The
extension
negotiation
mechanism
that
I
have
in
mind
is
encrypted
because,
above
most,
the
extensions
I
want
to
do
are
I
want
to
be
entirely
encrypted,
and
so
I
don't
really
want
to
use
that
extension
negotiation
mechanism
to
negotiate
something
that
is
outside
the
encrypted
envelope.
That
seems
weird
to
me
so
I
mean
we
could
do
that,
but
the
point
here
is
to
like
actually
give
the
path
information.
So
why
are
we
trying
to
do
that
negotiation
in
an
encrypted
way,
when
the
whole
point
is
to
give
the
path
information?
Thank
you.
T
AB
AB
AJ
Thank
You
Sanjay
Mishra
Verizon.
Some
are
going
back
to
your
question
about
earlier.
You
add
that
you're
not
heard
as
much
about
this
structure
around
by
you
need
in
v1,
so
I
think
really.
The
the
question
is
that
the
deployability
and
municipality
they
cannot
go
hand-in-hand.
So
if
you
are
looking
to
standardize,
quick
and
divide
in
the
network
that
allows
operators
to
maintain
the
same
level
of
service
as
they
do
today,
you
really
need
to
consider
that
the
immense
ability
aspect,
as
we
did
by
quick.
AJ
So
if
that
goes
with
v1,
then
we
stick
with
v1
and
I'm,
not
really
sure
of
having
a
3b
option
really
helps
so
I
think
I
would
stick
with
where
we
are
and
as
Brian
earlier
said,
that
you
know
the
implementation
itself
was
not
a
really
big
sort
of
adding
to
the
structure
of
the
of
how
long
it'll
take
to
add
this
thing.
So
we
should
be.
We
should
be
able
to
add
this
into
the
current
release:
I'm,
not
really
sure
about
3d
and
unfortunately
I'm,
seeing
a
big
divide
here
between
those
that
are
develop.
AJ
A
You
so
we're
gonna
take
a
slightly
different
tack.
Can
we
see
a
show
of
hands
in
the
room
of
who
is
implementing
quick
now,
okay,
keep
them
up.
If,
if,
if
the
spin
bit
were
to
magically
appear
in
our
specification
tomorrow,
would
you
would
your
implementation
be
emitting
and
honoring
that
part
of
the
specification?
If
it
would
please
keep
your
hand
up
if
it
would
not?
A
Please
take
your
hand
down
okay,
so
there's
some
wavy
hands
that
aren't
sure
good,
there's
a
hand
back
there
and
there's
a
hand
here
which
are
the
same
hands
kind
of
you.
Two
are
sharing
hand
in
that
sense
right
and
there's
a
kind
of
a
wavy
hand
here,
so
three
wavy
hands
and
one
combined
yes
or
implementation,
and
one
over
here:
okay,
oh
that's
a
wavy
hand
too,
and
oh
okay.
AK
A
We
tried
to
filter
that
out.
We
I
think
we
mostly
filtered
that
out,
so
there
there's
some
interest
from
implementers
in
at
least
experimenting
with
this.
We
had
a
back
and
forth
about.
You
know
how
we
would
do
this
with
it.
As
an
extension,
it
sounds
like
there
are
more
questions
that
that
brings
up
where
we're
not
really
sure
that
that's
a
viable
path
forward,
so
I,
don't
really
think
we
can
make
a
conclusive
choice
about
that
now.
If
we
were
to
land
Brian,
is
your
poll
requests
still
clean?
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
one
thing
we
could
do
is
land
your
PR
and
have
some
experimentation,
see
how
many
people
actually
emit
and
then
work
with
it
in
the
next
few
months
and
make
that
part
of
the
implementation
draft
goals
and
then
evaluate
that
later
on
and
make
a
decision
about
whether
it
remains
in
the
draft
and
I
want
to
so
I
want
feedback
to
that
approach.
Now
I.
Would
that.
R
Seems
like
a
good
approach
going
for
a
hike,
Ryan
Trammell.
That
seems
like
a
good
approach
going
forward.
One
other
thing
that
I
heard
in
the
room
is
that
there
is
tied
to
the
emerging
consensus
around
encrypting.
The
packet
number
there
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
support
for
Veck
and
I
would
volunteer
to
do
another
PR
to
add
the
back.
We
write
when,
when
the
encrypted
packet
number
man
for.
Q
A
So
same
question:
if
you're
an
implementer-
and
we
did
it
sometime
in
the
future,
would
you
admit
these
bits?
I
see
wavy
hands
from
from
the
Google
gossip
front
and
a
wavy
hand
from
Akamai
still
and
still
a
strong
hand
from
Microsoft
and
a
wavy
hand,
so
I
same
set
of
hands?
I!
Don't
think
that
change
it
moves
the
needle!
Please
go
quickly
wrong.
AM
Even
I
think
I
think
that
the
problem
is
that
the
ones
who
are
once
it
are
not
the
one
that
implemented
the
client-side,
the
one
to
transit,
the
vet
work
and
eventually
they
will
ask
for
that
fro
from
the
product
either
by
specifically
asking
or
by
blocking
I
mean
that's
what
will
happen.
So
you
can
say
you
don't
want
to
implement.
It
doesn't
mean
much,
it
depends
what
will
happen
actually
in
the
networks
once
it
started
to
be
multi.
L
Pro-German
got
editor
hat
on.
This
will
make
life
very
difficult,
not
not
just
in
terms
of
managing
the
text,
but
in
terms
of
mechanisms
we
I'm
really
hoping
that
after
the
ITF,
we
start,
you
know
getting
into
the
packet
number
detection
issue
and
try
to
land
a
solution
to
that.
This
sort
of
stalls
everything
up
until
we
can
resolve
it
and
I
we're.
L
A
B
O
K
A
A
M
Lars
Lars
I
get
from
the
floor
and
others
chair,
but
sort
of
what
you
proposed,
but
I
think
what
I
need
you
for
both
of
you
changes
how
we
work
right.
We
we
don't
land,
the
arse
and
then
on
land.
We
try
hard
to
get
consensus
for
the
VRS,
and
once
we
have
consensus,
we
let
them
in
just
because
look,
Martin
and
John
are
ready.
It
becomes
really
difficult
to
do
the
unlearning
and
so
I
object
that
we
change
the
process
that
we
have
in
the
working
group.
That's
worked
quite
well
in
the
past.
Just.
A
Because
this
is
a
hard
topic,
so
one
thing
we
could
do
is
to
address
that.
One
thing
we
could
do
is
leave
a
couple
of
combination
approach,
s
suppose
we
could
reserve
a
few
bits,
have
a
separate
document
that
describes
how
to
use
those
bits
and
if,
at
the
end
of
our
process,
we
agree
that
this
is
indeed
useful
and
is
actually
getting
implement
our
take-up.
We
can
incorporate
that
into
the
spec
before
chips
as
we
want.
L
Very
quickly,
this
just
changed
equations
on
my
mind,
because
I
think
this
means
that
we're
gonna
actually
disgusts
in
the
issues
now,
but
we
now
know
quite
a
bit.
I
just
want
to
make
everybody
middle.
My
bed
of
that
act,
you're
gonna,
have
to
not
just
identify
shoes
with
this
particular
proposal.
You're
not
trying
to
solve
them.
A
Right
so
I
think
the
two
as
I
understand
it.
The
two
possible
pairs
for
and
defer
put
in
a
spin
bid
in
v1
or
to
reserve
a
few
bits
have
a
separate
document
with
the
idea
that
if
we
prove
it
as
a
viable
thing
that
gets
implementation,
support
and
and
and
we'll
probably
have
to
have
a
rough
consensus
further
down
the
path.
We'll
fold
that
separate
document
into
quick
v1.
Does
that
sound?
Like
the
two
options
we
have
I'm.
M
M
We
were
concluding
on
this
today
and
it's
very
clear
that
we're
not
going
to
conclude
this
today.
It
seems
like
and
and
therefore
so,
I
don't
Spencer,
who,
when
it
sometime,
has
questions
and
his
mind.
That
would
help
him
are.
O
M
AC
O
AC
O
Want
to
say
a
couple
things:
this
is
a
way
this
I
think
this
is
the
most
positive
conversation
on
this
topic
that
I
have
seen
since
the
public,
since
the
RC
on
what
we
learnt
pervasive
encryption
being
an
attack
was
published.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
working
group
for
that,
and
I
would
like
to
thank
the
chairs,
especially
for
that,
because,
even
though
all
the
transport
working
group
chairs
take
a
lot
of
crap,
these
guys
managed
to
still
stand
out.
So
I
would
like
to
thank
you
all
for
that.
O
M
Let's
say
you
on
the
mailing
list
having
out
some
water,
so
I
would
summarize
this
me
today
as
sort
of
it's
it's
very
clear
that
there's
enough
interest
from
a
variety
of
people
to
use
the
spin
bit
and
understand
what
it's
good
for
and
and
and
learn
more
about
it
that
I
think
sort
of
the
option
for
right,
no
spin,
whatever
I
think
rather
than
those
the
minute
we
want
I,
think
that
is
out.
I
also
think
the
option
wants
the
midden.
Invariance
is
sort
of
out
right.
So
that's
that's!
E
M
Think
so
we're
looking
at
an
approach
to
manage
give
people
the
ability
to
experiment
with
spinning
some
bits
in
quick
as
it
gets
shipped,
without
delaying
the
rollout
of
quick
v1
and
as
the
great
sort
of
trying
to
find
an
approach
at
an
ad
hoc
manner
here
and
I'm
at
least
not
coherent
enough
this
morning
to
to
propose
one
there
to
hear
that
that
you
have
proposed.
M
E
J
A
B
A
A
great
question:
so,
if
we
choose
a
this
working
group,
will
not
talk
about
spin
bits
in
our
current
scope
of
discussion,
because
we're
talking
about
v1
right
now,
if
we
choose
B,
will
instruct
the
editors
to
reserved
some
bits.
I
think
Brian
was,
if
he's
willing,
spin
up
a
separate
document.
We
will
talk
to
implementers
and
then
put
that
the
use
of
that
document
on
the
implementation
drafts
as
a
a
goal,
not
a
required
goal.
Obviously,
but
we'll
try
and
encourage
the
implementers
to
experiment
with
it,
and
we
will
at
some
time.