Subject: Re: Consensus call: Spin Bit

From: Dirkjan Ochtman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 21:43:31 +0100

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Furthermore, we would require implementations that do send it and reflect
> it to opt out a certain amount of their traffic, to assure that there is a
> sufficient anonymity set for those that wish not to use it.
>

Has this bit made it into draft 17, or is that still incoming? We couldn't
find it so far, but want to make sure we get this right.

Regards,

Dirkjan

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:53:49 -0800

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-17#section-17.3

"

 Spin Bit (S):  The sixth bit (0x20) of byte 0 is the Latency Spin
      Bit, set as described in [SPIN
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-17#ref-SPIN>].
"

-Ekr

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 13:06:07 -0800

The spin bit is in the draft here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-17#section-17.3.

---

From: Dirkjan Ochtman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:14:08 +0100

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:54 PM Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

>       Bit, set as described in [SPIN <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-17#ref-SPIN>].
> "
>
> I did find that part -- I meant specifically the part about requiring
"implementations that do send it and reflect it to opt out a certain amount
of their traffic", which I didn't find in transport-17 or spin-exp-01.

Regards,

Dirkjan

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 17:16:20 +1100

> of their traffic", which I didn't find in transport-17 or spin-exp-01.

There is a PR that discusses this, which has been merged, but not published:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1931

I'm deferring to spin bit editors on when new versions will be published.  I recommend working from the editor's' copy.