Including at least one interoperable format is good.
Having it be ascii is annoying (not very performant, requires more I/O, and 
thus decreases the fidelity at which we can ultimately capture events)
…but it is probably better than nothing.

-=R

From: QUIC <quic-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Lucas Pardue 
<lucaspardue.2...@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 5:21 AM
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, QUIC WG Chairs <quic-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Consensus call for qlog serialization format (issue #144)

Hi Paul,


On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:38 PM Paul Hoffman 
<paul.hoff...@icann.org<mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>> wrote:

On Aug 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lucas Pardue 
<lucaspardue.2...@gmail.com<mailto:lucaspardue.2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> The intention here is to determine consensus on using _a JSON_ serialization 
> and not a completely different format.

The associated question, which was not asked on this thread is "should there be 
any serialization format chosen, or just a data definition?". I would have 
leaned towards that, particularly because of the thorny JSON serialization 
issues brought up in the draft. However, that discussion often gets too meta 
for folks who want to start debugging and logging now.

There's quite a large population of people already using JSON for qlog, prior 
to WG adoption. So far, there has been a practical benefit to an interoperable 
serialization format that was strongly linked to the schema definition by draft 
version. During the adoption call I don't recall there being suggestions for 
dropping serialization altogether from draft-ietf-quic-qlog-main-schema.

Wearing no hats: I think including at least one serialization format as part of 
the work is a useful function to drive design and development decisions. There 
might be a question about whether draft-ietf-quic-qlog-main-schema should 
include the concrete serialization or if it should be spun out to a separate 
document. However, I think this question is tangential to the current call.

Cheers,
Lucas

Reply via email to