Re: [multipathtcp] [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters ?

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/3/2017 12:09 PM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) wrote:
> > The TCPM charter states that the "WG mostly focuses on maintenance issues
> > (e.g., bug fixes) and modest changes to the protocol, algorithms, and
> > interfaces that maintain TCP's utility". Assisting the deployment of new TCP
> > extensions could be understood as one way to ensure TCP's utility.
>
>   "The client places the destination address and port number of the
>    target Server in the payload of the SYN sent to the Converter by
>    leveraging TCP Fast Open [RFC7413]."
>
> I disagree with any use of TCP SYN payloads as anything other than
> application data. At best, the mechanism attempts to re-create an
> extension of TCPMUX, which was deprecated for good reason.
>
> Additionally, this is claimed to be an application proxy, which would be
> out of scope both for TCPM and to modify the definition of the contents
> or directly manipulate the headers of any TCP segments.
>
> My position is as follows:
>     - I don't think this doc should be adopted by the WG
I too do not support the adoption for similar reasons above, even
though I'd love to see more usage of TFO and MPTCP.

TFO today is still facing bad middle-boxes issues and
demands extreme conservative heuristics to deploy (see last
presentation by Praveen in tcpm). Ultimately they need to be
applied by either the client or the proposed converters.

>     - Whether the doc is adopted or not, I have no interest in
> continuing to try to repair its significant (and IMO fatal) flaws
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm