IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Thu, 25 October 2012 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
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 C39EA21F899F for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.614
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLMr9++Acn+5 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73B121F89A2 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E30812780B3 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:52:00 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id u46so821847wey.31 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.84.41 with SMTP id v9mr12159726wiy.8.1351155118643; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.90.101 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:51:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAO249yeRJru7ySTDSNE-7uz5fqiCKrUowD+ipcydnavnxYdZGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044289ece2185f04ccde50c0"
Subject: [multipathtcp] comments on draft-paasch-mptcp-lowoverhead and draft-paasch-mptcp-ssl
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:52:09 -0000

Hello,

I have read draft-paasch-mptcp-lowoverhead and draft-paasch-mptcp-ssl.
I have the following questions and comments on the drafts.

1: I'm wondering if experimental status might be better for them. Is there
any thoughts on this?

2: How is the relationships between these drafts? Is it totally
independent?

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.

4: In section 5 of draft-paasch-mptcp-lowoverhead.
    "if an attacker manages to join an existing connection...".
    Does this mean the attacker steals the token? I just would like to
confirm..

Thanks,
--
Yoshifumi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email