Re: [Banana] Updated Charter

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sri,

BANANA is the name of a proposed WG, not a protocol.  The candidates have multiple different names.  What the final protocols, extensions or options would be called is unknown, especially if they result from the merger of multiple proposals, but I doubt any of them would be called "BANANA"...  

There is a value to having a standard, even if multiple proprietary approaches continue to exist, IMO.

Margaret


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 29, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Nic,
> 
> On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:06 AM, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I see here the risk that every WG comes up with a specific solution (e.g. for QUIC, MPTCP, …). The might use different control mechanisms and
>> 
>> even different policies (e.g. QUIC might prefer WLAN over LTE, MPTCP LTE over WLAN).
>> 
> 
> There will never be one God protocol which is the protocol for a solution. QUIC/MPTCP/MobIKE/MIP/SSL/GTP are all candidate protocols that will be enhanced and deployed for multipath related solutions. We cannot stop them from extending those protocols. 
> 
> We are mixing interoperability within a protocol, with interoperability across solutions.
> IETF is not in the business of mandating a specific protocol for a solution, or strive for a single solution across internet. A vendor/SDO may use "n" of protocols of his choice for a solution. We only ensure interoperability within a protocol and not interoperability across solutions. Again, IETF has not standardized "the routing protocol", or "the IPv6 transitioning protocol" and there will never be, "The Banana protocol".  
> 
> Sri