On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 2:22 AM Magnus Westerlund < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-17 at 10:34 -0600, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > > I think this is a problem generally in Quic specs. > > They are written for implementers. > > > > A protocol specification should not be an implementation spec. > > I think this is a deep issue maybe most Quic people do not appreciate > because > > it seems those people are mostly implementers. > > As responsible AD I do want to respond to this. Protocol specification > exists to > enable implementation. And that it is written for implementors are actually > great as it will avoid many interoperability issues. Other usage of the > specification I think will not be greately challenged by the detail level. > This > is not a novel, it is a protocol specification. So I don't consider this an > issue, rather the opposite. > > I am not sure. I think IESG could know. How many people that read protocol RFCs go ahead and implement them? I for one read a lot of RFCs but I have never implemented protocols, other teams do that, it is not my job. Maybe many these days because QUIC is being deployed. But later on the statistics could drastically change. Also as we know from Software Engineering, the process does not go direct, i.e read the RFC and give it to the implementation team. In short, I think ADs, IESG should consider this issue seriously and I believe in the end, spec view will win. We need the implementation detail removed with a great thank you to the editors. That said, I am not going to fight in this as I have no dog in this fight :) Behcet > From my perspective the QUIC documents are in the top percentile of > documents > when it comes to specification quality that I have seen during my soon 6 > years > as AD from across the whole IETF. > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > TSV AD > > >
