[multipathtcp] draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 07 December 2016 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 88C99129EDD for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 06:41:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=1.107, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 OMsfZTLPWled for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 06:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73007129F53 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 06:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A0EDE1001C4; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:40:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.75]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7EF9D4004C; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:40:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:40:23 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis
Thread-Index: AdJQl9RXHVIAAVm+Qiyr4JQGcXkqlw==
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:40:22 +0000
Message-ID: <81bb9dea-ea02-420e-b4de-3ffe4c72e685@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_81bb9deaea02420eb4de3ffe4c72e685OPEXCLILMA4corporateadr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/LjiNHf0wk03UD_JSCPDVGpyGHSY>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: [multipathtcp] draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis
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, 07 Dec 2016 14:41:10 -0000

Hi Alan, all,

It seems that some fixes are needed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-07#section-3.1 given that C-bit has now a meaning:

==

   D through H:  The remaining bits, labeled "C" through "H", are used

      for crypto algorithm negotiation.  Currently only the rightmost

      bit, labeled "H", is assigned.  Bit "H" indicates the use of HMAC-

      SHA1 (as defined in Section 3.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-07#section-3.2>).  An implementation that only

      supports this method MUST set bit "H" to 1, and bits "C" through

      "G" to 0.



   A crypto algorithm MUST be specified.  If flag bits C through H are

   all 0, the MP_CAPABLE option MUST be treated as invalid and ignored

   (that is, it must be treated as a regular TCP handshake).

..
====

Also, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-07#section-8.2 needs to be updated.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med