Hi Paul,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:38 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> > 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
