Re: [multipathtcp] draft-boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode-07

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 05 July 2016 17:20 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 2508112D0C3 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 urw-7KXpGE5V for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (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 95D0312B060 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.115] ([128.9.184.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u65HKCUO020964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jordan Melzer <Jordan.Melzer@telus.com>
References: <CAC8QAccht1nMP95HVdP6YcqJfxNryvDbhaK=LY0LcW5-JKM82A@mail.gmail.com> <e597f6bc66d24c679edee2121ae7fc38@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E787CE22C1@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <68c2382a-74c9-1999-e8d4-e5aceccbf4db@uclouvain.be> <5776A7F3.1000906@isi.edu> <80C0017654A043479F53C41112BE8476897A4F31B1@WP40046.corp.ads>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <577BEC4A.6030409@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:20:10 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <80C0017654A043479F53C41112BE8476897A4F31B1@WP40046.corp.ads>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: u65HKCUO020964
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/2G5KycAVi99qyHf3Vg8KseA1Pig>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org Mailing List \(multipathtcp@ietf.org\)" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] draft-boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode-07
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 05 Jul 2016 17:20:40 -0000


On 7/5/2016 8:47 AM, Jordan Melzer wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> The main RFC reference for performance enhancing proxies is here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3135

That's informational, not standards track.

I don't think it is appropriate to endorse the behaviors described in
that RFC in a standards-track protocol.

> It gives consideration to the end-to-end principle and describes deployments (current as of 2001).
>
> Do you have an informational RFC (or other BCP) reference for routing-based approaches to multipathing individual-user traffic?
Informational RFCs are not BCPs.

I don't have such a reference or know whether one exists, but then
again, that's your challenge.


> Re TCP over TCP approaches, if they could work, would you like them better than a proxy approach?  Eg, (untested) MP-DCTCP lower layer?

I judge IETF approaches by the following criteria:
    - whether there is a problem that needs to be solved (or a new
capability that needs to exist)
    - whether the solution solves the problem (or provides the new
capability)
    - the impact of the solution on the rest of the Internet

You haven't convinced me of any of the above yet.

Joe