Re: [multipathtcp] AD review is coming

[Alan Ford <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

To be clear, you are looking for some rationale in the draft text as well? The technical discussion of the fallback process is given in Section 3.1:
   The MP_CAPABLE exchange in this specification (v1) is different to
   that specified in v0 [RFC6824].  If a host supports multiple versions
   of MPTCP, the sender of the MP_CAPABLE option SHOULD signal the
   highest version number it supports.  In return, in its MP_CAPABLE
   option, the receiver will signal the version number it wishes to use,
   which MUST be equal to or lower than the version number indicated in
   the initial MP_CAPABLE.  There is a caveat though with respect to
   this version negotiation with old listeners that only support v0.  A
   listener that supports v0 expects that the MP_CAPABLE option in the
   SYN-segment includes the initiator's key.  If the initiator however
   already upgraded to v1, it won't include the key in the SYN-segment.
   Thus, the listener will ignore the MP_CAPABLE of this SYN-segment and
   reply with a SYN/ACK that does not include an MP_CAPABLE, thus
   leading to a fallback to regular TCP.  An initiator MAY cache this
   information about a peer and for future connections, MAY choose to
   attempt using MPTCP v0, if supported, before recording the host as
   not supporting MPTCP.
But you would like to see some discussion mentioning the migration from Experimental to Proposed Standard? And the benefits it brings? Would that cover it?

Many thanks,
Alan

> On 12 Apr 2019, at 17:40, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi authors, hi shepherd/Phil,
> 
> Just wanted to quickly let you know that I’ve started the IETF last call just now in order to hopefully get this document on the telechat in 3 weeks. 
> 
> I’ve not finished my AD review completely but I am nearly done and convinced that this doc is ready to start IETF last call. So far I have only some editorial or smallish comments and nits which I will send in detail beginning of next week and can be address during or after IETF last call.
> 
> Only one request for now (mostly with an eye on the IESG evaluation): The draft says that changes are made which are not backward compatible (see sec 3.1). That’s fine, however, it would be good to also explain a little bit in the draft as well as in the shepherd write up (!) why this is okay. My understanding is that in case of a v0 server the connection will “just" fall-back to non-MPTCP capable and that this is acceptable in current deployment situation. Please confirm and at least update the write-up accordingly as soon as possible!
> 
> Thanks!
> Mirja
> 
> 
>