Hi Martin, For what it's worth, I thought the value of keeping them together before was basically that middlebox coordination as a topic would be useful to consider generally and that having two different examples together helped that.
I agree with you, though, that it makes it harder for each individual coordination method to get a clean spec. I took a look at this and the split looks generally reasonable to me. I think that we might eventually need a third document, which describes the middlebox considerations which are invariant for QUIC. regards, Ted On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 11:55 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello QUIC enthusiasts, > > *TL;DR* > At IETF 112 I proposed splitting the QUIC-LB draft into two documents, to > broad indifference. You can see the result in this branch: > https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers/tree/split-docs > > If people are generally OK with splitting the load balancing bit and the > retry offload bit into separate adopted documents, I would like to merge > this change and do the associated datatracker actions. > > *Longer Explanation:* > When Nick Banks came up with the idea of Retry offload, it fit with the > general theme of middlebox coordination, so we just tacked it on to our > QUIC-LB draft. This has become increasingly ill-advised for several reasons: > > - These systems have nothing to do with each other, except for the very > high-level idea of middlebox coordination > - It balloons the draft from 35 to 53 pages, which reduces the likelihood > of quality reviews > - If the RFC requires an update in the future, more text will increase the > workload, and it is unlikely both designs will simultaneously need an update > - There is no reason to think that implementation maturity for the two > halves will stay in sync, meaning that one part could hold back WGLC for > the other > - The load balancer part is largely version-independent, and retry offload > is not. > - QUIC-LB isn't even a good name for the doc if a bunch of it has nothing > to do with load balancers > - There are other middlebox-themed proposals out there, like Reset offload > <https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers/issues/119> and Proxy Protocol > for QUIC <https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers/issues/51>. Without > launching a discussion about the merits of these here, if our draft is > going to be the receptacle for all middlebox stuff, there will be further > bloat. IMO these should be separate drafts. > > Anyhow, please take a look at the branch, collect some thoughts, and you > can yell at me in Vienna if you find it to be disagreeable. > > Martin >
