Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP implementation feedback for RFC6824bis

[Alan Ford <[e-mail]>]

> On 5 Dec 2019, at 17:39, Christoph Paasch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Alan,
> 
>> On Dec 5, 2019, at 7:03 AM, Alan Ford <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> On 5 Dec 2019, at 00:33, Christoph Paasch <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 4, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Alan Ford <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the clarifications. I was revisiting the text to see ways to make these clarifications, however I find myself unsure of the need; please see comments below:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Section 3.1 clarification
>>>> 
>>>> Towards the end of Section 3.1 we actually say the following:
>>>> 
>>>>    The SYN with MP_CAPABLE occupies the first octet of data sequence space, although this does not need to be acknowledged at the connection level until the first data is sent (see Section 3.3).
>>>> 
>>>> Which would seem to cover exactly this concern.
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure how it covers the concern, because the issue I raise is that the client needs to somehow find out if the MP_CAPABLE made it to the receiver. And the clarification I suggest is to spell out that it is the DATA_ACK (see my next comment).
>>> 
>>>> However if you still feel further clarification is required, then we could add this also to the sentence you suggest, i.e.:
>>>> 
>>>>    If B has data to send first, then the reliable delivery of the ACK + MP_CAPABLE can be inferred by the receipt of this data with an MPTCP Data Sequence Signal (DSS) option (Section 3.3). 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The ambiguity here is that DSS does not imply DATA_ACK. One could send a DSS without a DATA_ACK, but that would not signal to the client the reliable delivery of the MP_CAPABLE. Only the DATA_ACK will do so.
>> 
>> OK well maybe I am not understanding your concern here. The first sentence I quote says that the MP_CAPABLE needs to be DATA_ACKed when the first data is sent.
> 
> Actually, strictly reading, the first sentence says that it must not be acknowledged until first data sent. It does not say that a MP_CAPABLE MUST be DATA_ACKed.

I really don’t read it like that - It makes no comment about when NOT to do something, simply that it needs to be acknowledged when data is sent. We could clarify it by changing it to:

   The SYN with MP_CAPABLE occupies the first octet of data sequence space, and this MUST be acknowledged at the connection level at the time the first data is sent or received (see Section 3.3).

>> The sentence beginning “If B has Data to send first” means:
>> 
>> - A->B SYN
>> - B->A SYN/ACK + MP_CAPABLE
>> - A->B ACK + MP_CAPABLE
>> - B->A ACK + DATA + DSS
>> 
>> DSS can contain one or both of DSM and DATA_ACK. However the previously quoted sentence says that the MP_CAPABLE needs to be acknowledged at the connection-level (i.e. DATA_ACKed) when the first data is sent.
>> 
>> However in writing this I realise that that text makes no comment about who is sending data. Because the intention is it applies to any data being sent (if B is sending, then it will include a DATA_ACK as well as a DSS; if A is sending then B will acknowledge with a DATA_ACK), but it could be read by someone to mean “only when acknowledging the first data does the MP_CAPABLE need to be included in the DATA_ACK”, which is not the desired meaning.
>> 
>> I am all for improving clarity so I think a clearer version of “If B has data…” would go:
>> 
>>     If B has data to send first, then the reliable delivery of the ACK + MP_CAPABLE is ensured by the receipt of this data with an MPTCP Data Sequence Signal (DSS) option (Section 3.3) containing a DATA_ACK for the MP_CAPABLE (which is the first octet of the data sequence space).
>> 
>> Would you be ok with that? It is shorter than the other edits whilst still being unambiguous.
> 
> This however does not say that the reception fo a DATA_ACK allows A to stop sending the MP_CAPABLE. I still think that it should be spelled out somewhere.

Remember this is the case where B is sending data first. There would not be retransmitted MP_CAPABLEs from A in this case, since A has no data to send. The acknowledgement ball is entirely in B’s court, and thus if A received a data packet from B without a DSS option it would consider the connection non-MPTCP-capable.

Regards,
Alan