[multipathtcp] comments on draft-hesmans-mptcp-socket-03

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Wed, 04 April 2018 08:08 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 46C80124205 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 01:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 63gUMbXNm0sB for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 01:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C74120047 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 01:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E369278280 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:07:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id m83so25235881ioi.8 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 01:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EuQ3FXhiLY7nIMSytOcAjKqYDyVqVgKx06sI0tbEt8DGxA1gZc u6zEnvOmBr0GIk43uh6n7OTA4XxxHXkOOZxjkKo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/R9PBCtHFj1vy7gJlb300HcGP+hudxFeJMigG4P1hvN07Vxzlkut9HmLqDNFI5+ldJw7dC+gKnoMf/7G09Nvw=
X-Received: by 10.107.57.84 with SMTP id g81mr15175892ioa.6.1522829274173; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 01:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.36.141 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 01:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 01:07:53 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249yfKLc5SD4t6R4KhhYxFgCZh=EO_XvdoBKAh99tMqoQvAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249yfKLc5SD4t6R4KhhYxFgCZh=EO_XvdoBKAh99tMqoQvAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/KUOJDIuj2H_x1UHtHWZfcbzKqzI>
Subject: [multipathtcp] comments on draft-hesmans-mptcp-socket-03
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 04 Apr 2018 08:08:00 -0000

Hi,
I've read draft-hesmans-mptcp-socket-03 and have comments on several
points listed below.

1: I think expression of __u8 or __u16 are not very common. (I guess
linux specific) So, I guess uint8_t or uint16_t might be better for
them unless there's specific reasons.

2: Do we need 16 bits for low_prio, although it is currently used for
binary info? Also, I am wondering prio might be better rather than
low_prio. Because I'm not very sure how to use low_prio=2 or 3.
However, I can image using prio=2 or 3 to indicate higher priority.

3: Section 3.4 uses the same name for the structure  in Section 3.1
(mptcp_sub_tuple). But, the members in the structure are different..
Is this intentional?

4: It seems to me that if_idx and ipv6_srh will be overwritten when
the second inet_pton() is called in the sample code in Figure 11.
Also, I think sin_family, sin_port and sin_addr should be sin6_.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi