Re: [multipathtcp] Adding a new work item on MPTCP API

re socket operations.
this is the term used in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6897#section-5.3
happy to use whatever term is clearest - operations, options or sometihing else!
phil
________________________________________
From: multipathtcp <multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Fabien Duchêne <fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be>
Sent: 14 November 2016 02:03
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Adding a new work item on MPTCP API

Hello,

On 11/13/2016 08:31 AM, Christoph Paasch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 09/11/16 - 10:21:42, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
>> Following the earlier discussion, there is support to add a charter item as follows:
>> <<RFC6897 defined an optional, basic application interface for MPTCP-aware applications, including a set of socket operations. Now there is more experience of how MPTCP is being used, the WG will re-visit this work, and consider adding more advanced socket operations. The document will be Informational.>>
>> If you disagree with this being added, or suggest some mod to this item, please say.
> I support this work as well.
>
> But, I also agree with Mirja's comment that "socket operations" is not a
> well-defined term. I guess, what has been meant was "socket options" - the
> ones that are available in many operating systems.
>
> I think the API should not limit itself to a specific way on how to
> configure the stack (e.g., through socket-options, ioctl, netlink,...).
> But rather be agnostic as to the technical details on how the higher
> layer configures/controls the MPTCP-stack.
>

I support this work and I agree with Christoph and Mirja.
> Christoph
>

Cheers,

Fabien

_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp