Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

Christoph,
Thanks for working on it.
Re MP-FASTCLOSE - this is based on the thread at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/fI2cgcRxttl20HyRs_QkDgXT9cM  This didn't reach a definitive conclusion in favour, but there were no objections. If anyone objects, please shout (I suggest the default is to add this text)
Re TFO - this is about the interactions of TFO & MPTCP as described at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.pdf and in the related draft. This was agreed earlier (26 July 2017 email) in principle, people should check the exact text.
Referring back to this earlier email (26 july)

>>3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal.

Suggest we drop this, unless there's proposed text in this next version (before ietf)
Also, << Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?  I was wondering if there was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect.>>
I'm assuming you haven't had time to implement this
Best wishes,
phil

From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
Sent: 18 February 2018 22:08
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com>
Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

Hello Phil & all,

to simplify collaboration, we are now hosting the draft on github at https://github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis.
People can submit pull-requests and issue-reports there.

We added the text for TFO and Olivier's MP_FASTCLOSE proposal, and will release a new version of the draft soon, before the deadline for IETF 101.

Cheers,
Christoph

On Jan 30, 2018, at 12:54 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:

Yes, please can you provide text as soon as possible. It was agreed to add text back in July.....

-----Original Message-----
From: cpaasch@apple.com<mailto:cpaasch@apple.com> [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
Sent: 30 January 2018 06:45
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

On 29/01/18 - 13:42:48, philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:

Hi,
Is there any news or plans about the list of items to finalise the bis?

Currently, there isn't yet an implementation of SHA-256. I will see what I can do (if someone wants to give it a shot, that would be great! Code is at https://multipath-tcp.org :-)).

Also, the bis needs re-activating, as the draft is about to expire

We posted an update of draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-02 a few months back. Could we integrate this in the bis before we finalize it? I can provide the text for it.

Christoph

Thanks
phil

From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>
Sent: 23 October 2017 09:52
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

Hi,
<< Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the
only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?>> I was wondering if there was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect.
Thanks
phil
From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
Sent: 26 July 2017 15:46
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
<philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com%3cmailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>>>
Subject: Finishing RFC6824bis

We are close to finalising the bis and being able to WG Last call and send it to the IESG. Here's a list of actions. If we've forgotten anything, or anyone has another mod /addition to the bis, please say.

1.      Make the changes agreed - see email below.

2.      Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?

3.      Chairs /all - list of changes between RFC & bis, along with a short justification

4.      Chairs /all - a short justification for obsoleting RFC6824

5.      Chairs /all - List of implementations of the protocol & bis (ie a check of which parts are implemented once or also in iOS)
Our proposed plan is that once the various parts of #1 are done, we'll do a WGLC. Items 3, 4 & 5 are things that will be useful to the IESG. Item 2 is certainly something that would be nice to have - if there'll be a significant delay implementing it, then we should discuss whether to wait, or whether it's acceptable to progress without an implementation of this part.
Finally a reminder that the plan is that RFC6824bis advances on the
Standards track

From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
Sent: 26 July 2017 08:51
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org%3cmailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>>>
Subject: Changes to RFC6824bis

Hi,
During the discussions in Prague, we had good agreement about the
following change to the bis. This is a change to the wire protocol.
Please say as soon as possible if you disagree with this change,
otherwise we'll go ahead and make this change:-

Remove address identifier from MP-PRIO, as it can be used as an attack.

Explanation at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WWWaQ3AKWEMgsBSPKc_
R9Ct_YoI and follow up emails. The issue was briefly summarised during
the Friday meeting in Prague - eg see the etherpad for a summary
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-mptcp?useMonospace
Font=true

Alan - are you ok to make this change please?

--

In addition, we agreed in principle to the following (informational) changes to the bis - exact text to be proposed.

2. Guidance about MPTCP & TFP interactions, based on https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.pdf - Christoph & Olivier, please propose text.

3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal.
Best wishes,
Phil & Yoshi

_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp