Re: [multipathtcp] comments on draft-paasch-mptcp-lowoverhead and draft-paasch-mptcp-ssl

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hello Christoph,

Thank you so much for your clarification.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Christoph Paasch <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Yoshifumi,
>
> thanks for your comments. Please find my replies below.
>
>
> On Thursday 25 October 2012 01:51:58 Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
> > 1: I'm wondering if experimental status might be better for them. Is
> there
> > any thoughts on this?
>
> You are probably right. I can change this for the next version.
>
> > 2: How is the relationships between these drafts? Is it totally
> > independent?
>
> Yes, they are independent from each other. MPTCP v0 or MPTCP v1 (low
> overhead)
> can use a key provided by the application.
>
> > 3: In my feeling, it could be dangerous If token is used for high-order
> > 32bit. (draft-paasch-mptcp-lowoverhead)
> >     We might want to emphasize this point.
>
> What part in the draft are you referring to?
> It is the random number that is used for the 32 high-order bits of the
> IDSN.
>
> Or do you mean that we just should explain why the random number is used,
> and
> not the token for the high-order bits.
>

Sorry. I was not clear enough. Yes, that's what I meant.
I thought if someone overlooks this part, it might be dangerous.

Thanks,
--
Yoshifumi