[multipathtcp] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 15 September 2016 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3638B12B18C; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147392021317.29825.3233876740262015814.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:16:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/Mri--7IZkteP_ONSd_eSUXedDI4>
Cc: draft-ietf-mptcp-experience@ietf.org, mptcp-chairs@ietf.org, multipathtcp@ietf.org, qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Subject: [multipathtcp] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 06:16:53 -0000

Benoit Claise 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:


Thanks for this document.

- This document contains a couple of possible improvements.
I believe this important aspect of the draft should also be mentioned in
the abstract.

- Just a thought (no need to reply):
On one side, section 3.1 speaks of "middlebox interference". 
On the other side, this document via
[I-D.lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architecture] proposes just that: a new
middlebox function.
This new middlebox might generate some interference for others.  Sarcasm
warning: I guess that middleboxes are like children, we can only stand
I wanted to make that point, in light of all the middlebox discussions
these days, for example in the QUIC charter.

- Another thought (again no need to reply) 
   "Since September
   2013, Multipath TCP is also supported on smartphones and tablets
   running iOS7 [IOS7].  There are likely hundreds of millions of
   Multipath TCP enabled devices.  However, this particular Multipath
   TCP implementation is currently only used to support a single
   application.  Unfortunately, there is no public information about the
   lessons learned from this large scale deployment."

Yes, this is really unfortunate.

Below is Qin Wu's OPS directorate review:
I think this document is well written and ready for publication. Here are
a few editorial comments:

1.       Section 1, paragraph 2 mentions that three implementation are
open sources. Which three of them are open sources? I think it includes
apple MP-TCP, but it is not clear in the text.

2.       Section 2.2 paragraph 7 points out using REMOVE_ADDR option may
cause operational problem, but I don’t see any discussion on this in the
operation experience section, is this an open issue that needs to be
addressed in the future or other document?

3.       Section 3.1 talks about the v0.87 Multipath TCP implementation
What does V0.87 stands for? Version number? is there any reference to

4.       Section 3.2

s/the the default congestion control/ the default congestion control

5.       Section 3.2 last paragraph said that Reports from some users
indicate that they seem to favor OLIA. It looks this statement is
groundless statement.

6.       Section 3.9

s/ returned to the DNS query/return in response to the DNS query

7.       Section 3.10 said:


A better approach would probably be to try a few attempts on

the WiFi interface and then try to use the second interface for the

initial subflow as well.


When trying to use second interface for initial subflow? A few attempts
on the WIFI interface fails?

8.       Section 3.2