Hi Behcet, On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:20 PM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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 > :) > I have to agree with Magnus. The specs are not non-fiction accounts of technology or layperson PR-friendly nutshell soundbites. If you remove implementation detail there is no information for anyone to make interoperable implementations. There's a whole industry of folks that do a fantastic job of turning these very detailed specs into deployments, products, books, video and podcasts that suit end-users, explaining things more user-firendly terms. Dumbing down specification just duplicates that work and is a disservice to engineers. Rather than reading RFCs, I suggest people go and read something like Daniel Stenberg's "HTTP/3 explained" [1], Ilya Grigorik's "High-Performance Browser Networking", or get a large pot of coffee and watch the 12+ hours of Video-on-Demand content that I produced on the topic of QUIC & HTTP/3 [3]. Cheers, Lucas [1] - https://daniel.haxx.se/http3-explained/ [2] - https://hpbn.co/ [3] - https://blog.cloudflare.com/last-call-for-quic/ > > > 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 >> >> >>
