Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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: To: 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:24:15 -0000 --_000_524e75d3f95d4b51892a8f54ad2f6eddrew09926dag03bdomain1sy_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Following our discussion on yesterday's WG meeting, here is some proposed t= ext 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 featur= es two proxies, one in the home gateway ('CPE') and one in the network, bot= h 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 cr= iteria. The WG Chairs will produce the initial version. * analysis of proposed solutions against these criteria, as well as what up= dates they would require to RFC6824bis. As a result, the WG may agree to g= o forward with the favoured solution. Comments? Thanks Phil & Yoshi --_000_524e75d3f95d4b51892a8f54ad2f6eddrew09926dag03bdomain1sy_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Following our discussion on yesterday’s WG mee= ting, here is some proposed text for the charter:-

 

MPTCP is now seeing widespread deployment in netw= orks to bond together two accesses, such as fixed and mobile broadband. The= scenario typically features two proxies, one in the home gateway (‘C= PE’) and one in the network, both under the control of the operator. The WG will analyse proposed solutions for th= is scenario by producing:-

* assessment criteria for solutions; support of n= on-TCP traffic is not a criteria. The WG Chairs will produce the initial ve= rsion.

* analysis of proposed solutions against these cr= iteria, 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

--_000_524e75d3f95d4b51892a8f54ad2f6eddrew09926dag03bdomain1sy_--