Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Tue, 25 April 2017 07:11 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 2D84B128768 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ld-tgkoVsQGQ for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 310D112025C for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHT03-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.56) by EVMED06-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:11:36 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03d.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.30) by EVMHT03-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:11:36 +0100
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, 25 Apr 2017 08:11:35 +0100
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, 25 Apr 2017 08:11:35 +0100
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, <lars@netapp.com>
CC: <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNY1jXzvDFKRxmRsHBM53IcbgCSLSEA///y9gCAAAMwgIAACAeA//mir4A=
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:11:34 +0000
Message-ID: <fde4be28d9b6474bbde2d92c817dfecb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <3F6DAF4F-87AD-411E-96A6-4FB52FF83F6D@netapp.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <225E7ED6-F614-4216-BF01-1E6E30605A3B@netapp.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D65@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D65@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/O-SYjAGD9OdqSSWPCygNpc4Xk8M>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:11:42 -0000

Just to clarify our interpretation of the various hums during the meeting.

We interpreted them as indicating there was one topic that it was worthwhile doing a consensus call on. We did not interpret the hums as indicating clear consensus that we merely needed to confirm on the list. 

So far we see:
In favour: 
christian.jacquenet@orange.com
mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
William Ivancic <ivancic@syzygyengineering.com>; 
Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@lip6.fr>;   
Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>; 
David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>; 
Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com 
Robert Skog <robert.skog@ericsson.com>; 
Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>; 
Costin Raiciu <costin.raiciu@cs.pub.ro>; 

Against:  
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>;
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>; 
Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com>;


It is therefore important to hear views from other people. Of course it is also welcome for the technical discussion to continue (indeed, some people may want more of the technical discussion before giving their view on the consensus call).

Thanks
Phil & Yoshi

-----Original Message-----
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] 
Sent: 21 April 2017 07:55

[cut]

Lacking that information, I don't see a new element here that could lead to change the consensus reached at the Chicago meeting (of course I'm not entitled to do that call anyway).