+1 to removing the well-known log retrieval text from the currently adopted qlog documents. Moving it to an individual draft is fine if someone wants to do that work, and might even be useful for folks coordinating interop efforts. That said, I would personally be opposed to adopting and publishing that individual draft since no one will (or should) deploy well-known log retrieval in production. David
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 6:29 AM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Mirja, > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2023, 11:09 Mirja Kuehlewind, < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Lucas, >> >> >> >> I think it’s fine to remove it from the draft in order to finalize the >> qlog format without this dependency. However, I actually would be >> interested to further work on this use case. Should we maybe start a short >> draft right away so we don’t forget about it? >> > > Thanks for the feedback. It wouldn't be too much effort to migrate the > text into a new individual draft. If folks were interested in pursuing it > any further, I think the qlog editor team would be looking for volunteer(s) > to help lead that and drive that effort. > > Cheers > Lucas > > Mirja >> >
