[multipathtcp] Proposed charter text for MPTCP proxy item

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
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 781BD12941E for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:24:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 X5hs_oRDxjUJ for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C339D1293F2 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:24:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EPDAG01C-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.197.204) by EVMED03-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:24:10 +0000
Received: from rew09926dag03d.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.30) by EPDAG01C-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.197.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:24:10 +0000
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03d.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:24:09 +0000
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:24:09 +0000
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Proposed charter text for MPTCP proxy item
Thread-Index: AdI/XEJXR/6DctdbSpOPmSDb5MGITg==
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:24:09 +0000
Message-ID: <524e75d3f95d4b51892a8f54ad2f6edd@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.202.242]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_524e75d3f95d4b51892a8f54ad2f6eddrew09926dag03bdomain1sy_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/IEuNIP89fWC-z_NrnhhZ5uydbZg>
Subject: [multipathtcp] Proposed charter text for MPTCP proxy item
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:24:15 -0000

Hi,
Following our discussion on yesterday's WG meeting, here is some proposed text for the charter:-


MPTCP is now seeing widespread deployment in networks to bond together two accesses, such as fixed and mobile broadband. The scenario typically features two proxies, one in the home gateway ('CPE') and one in the network, both under the control of the operator. The WG will analyse proposed solutions for this scenario by producing:-

* assessment criteria for solutions; support of non-TCP traffic is not a criteria. The WG Chairs will produce the initial version.

* analysis of proposed solutions against these criteria, as well as what updates they would require to RFC6824bis.  As a result, the WG may agree to go forward with the favoured solution.

Comments?
Thanks
Phil & Yoshi