Hello all,
Thank you for the excellent discussion on this and sorry for my silence.
As Lucas has said multiple times, I don't think we should take the current
text too much as direct gospel for this consensus call.
To me, it is indeed much more a question of agreement on going for "a" JSON
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 5:41 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>
> We are having a disconnect here that is central to the question in this
> consensus call. The original call said:
>
> > The feeling in the room was to keep the JSON serialization format.
> Noting that implementations can use
From: QUIC on behalf of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:18 AM
To: Roberto Peon
Cc: Paul Hoffman , QUIC WG , QUIC WG
Chairs , Lucas Pardue
Subject: Re: [Ext] Consensus call for qlog serialization format (issue #144)
On this point ...
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:55
On this point ...
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:55 AM Roberto Peon
wrote:
> 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
On Aug 5, 2021, at 5:20 AM, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:38 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> On Aug 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lucas Pardue wrote:
>> > The intention here is to determine consensus on using _a JSON_
>> > serialization and not a completely different format.
>>
>> The
: Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 5:21 AM
To: Paul Hoffman
Cc: QUIC WG , QUIC WG Chairs
Subject: Re: [Ext] Consensus call for qlog serialization format (issue #144)
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:38 PM Paul Hoffman
mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>> wrote:
On Aug 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lucas
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:38 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lucas Pardue
> 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
On Aug 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lucas Pardue 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
Hi Paul,
Response in-line:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 4:59 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2021, at 6:23 AM, Lucas Pardue
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello QUIC WG,
> >
> > During the IETF 111 meeting discussion of qlog, we discussed the
> serialization format tracked on issue #114 [1].
> >
> > The
On Aug 2, 2021, at 6:23 AM, Lucas Pardue wrote:
>
> Hello QUIC WG,
>
> During the IETF 111 meeting discussion of qlog, we discussed the
> serialization format tracked on issue #114 [1].
>
> The feeling in the room was to keep the JSON serialization format. Noting
> that implementations can
10 matches
Mail list logo
