Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 25 April 2017 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749DA1316F9 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9mcbY8LromM for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 442661316EB for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.33] ([128.9.184.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v3PHQJoL016476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: philip.eardley@bt.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, lars@netapp.com
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <3F6DAF4F-87AD-411E-96A6-4FB52FF83F6D@netapp.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <225E7ED6-F614-4216-BF01-1E6E30605A3B@netapp.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D65@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <fde4be28d9b6474bbde2d92c817dfecb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <259f03b9-7b06-4d82-872f-cd8a24073c56@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:26:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fde4be28d9b6474bbde2d92c817dfecb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/-SAUjrweg9sqbUPkeqmOTVNR-vI>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:26:54 -0000

Philip,

Your note below isn't a hum; it's a vote tally.

I encourage you to avoid doing that in the future.

Joe


On 4/25/2017 12:11 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> Just to clarify our interpretation of the various hums during the meeting.
>
> We interpreted them as indicating there was one topic that it was worthwhile doing a consensus call on. We did not interpret the hums as indicating clear consensus that we merely needed to confirm on the list. 
>
> So far we see:
> In favour: 
> christian.jacquenet@orange.com
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> William Ivancic <ivancic@syzygyengineering.com>; 
> Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@lip6.fr>;   
> Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>; 
> David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>; 
> Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com 
> Robert Skog <robert.skog@ericsson.com>; 
> Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>; 
> Costin Raiciu <costin.raiciu@cs.pub.ro>; 
>
> Against:  
> Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>;
> Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>; 
> Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com>;
>
>
> It is therefore important to hear views from other people. Of course it is also welcome for the technical discussion to continue (indeed, some people may want more of the technical discussion before giving their view on the consensus call).
>
> Thanks
> Phil & Yoshi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] 
> Sent: 21 April 2017 07:55
>
> [cut]
>
> Lacking that information, I don't see a new element here that could lead to change the consensus reached at the Chicago meeting (of course I'm not entitled to do that call anyway). 
>
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp