Hi My Friend Lucas,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:21 AM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 4:35 PM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:28 AM Ron Bonica via Datatracker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Reviewer: Ron Bonica >>> Review result: Ready >>> >>> Amazingly complete. I am sure that a naive implementer can code from >>> this. >>> >>> >>> >> You nailed it Ron. >> >> I think this is a problem generally in Quic specs. >> They are written for implementers. >> >> > I read Ron's comment as a compliment, not a complaint. > > 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. >> >> > The specs have been in development since the QUIC WG was chartered in > 2016. Can you point me to the GitHub issues that were raised to address the > deep issues you hint at? Now is a great time to remind people that the WG > is in parallel working on draft-ietf-quic-manageability [1], its intended > audience is network operators and I'm sure that Mirja and Brian would > appreciate more reviews. > > I expected that you would copy Stewart's review if you really wish to discuss this issue in detail seriously.. I don't have it on hand but I kept it somewhere, maybe I had resent it to quic list? Stewart gives good comments on the style and directs how they could be corrected. I just want to say that in Software Engineering, specification teams and implementation teams are usually different, that is my background. As I said this is a deep issue. Certainly it is good the chairs pay attention to it. Behcet Behcet > Cheers > Lucas > QUIC WG Co-chair > > [1] - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-manageability-08 > > >> >>
