Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 14 September 2016 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 2E51012B7C3 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mPgEmJ8Y26X for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2DE612B9FB for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25654 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2016 17:25:52 +0200
Received: from nb-10510.ethz.ch (HELO ?82.130.103.143?) (82.130.103.143) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 14 Sep 2016 17:25:51 +0200
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <147385003530.1966.83385935910172454.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=c3=bchlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <e40ea11b-a44c-8d73-fcf6-9652a708ff1b@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:25:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <147385003530.1966.83385935910172454.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/GqeVhR0JP-ZsopaiFKTqgtWE3hw>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mptcp-experience@ietf.org, mptcp-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:54:14 -0000

Hi,

actually the answer might be 'no'. But I guess the reason why they don't talk 
about it, is because we don't have any reports here.

Mirja


On 14.09.2016 12:47, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mptcp-experience/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I was a bit sad that there was no reporting of
> experiences with the security aspects of MPTCP.  Have
> we really learned nothing worth saying about that?
> Have we really seen no attacks on, or tailored to,
> MPTCP? It seems odd that the answer to both questions
> is "no."
>
>