[multipathtcp] Adding a new work item on MPTCP API

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Wed, 09 November 2016 10:21 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 30EAC129976 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:21:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.117
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-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 FGkwcRNIxpwZ for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:21:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A94D712952C for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:21:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EVMHT01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.42) by EVMED04-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:21:41 +0000
Received: from rew09926dag03a.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.18) by EVMHT01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:21:44 +0000
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03a.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:21:43 +0000
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; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:21:42 +0000
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adding a new work item on MPTCP API
Thread-Index: AdI6cw/RKIQBu3r4R/i6P9GRF0bXlg==
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:21:42 +0000
Message-ID: <0a0d2a248fac4616ac795c579d996be8@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
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: [10.55.202.233]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0a0d2a248fac4616ac795c579d996be8rew09926dag03bdomain1sy_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/bs2ebhGrl9gYImHoiCHIwEhGfEQ>
Subject: [multipathtcp] Adding a new work item on MPTCP API
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, 09 Nov 2016 10:21:50 -0000

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.
Thanks
Phil & Yoshi

From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
Sent: 31 July 2016 20:37
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R <philip.eardley@bt.com>
Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential new work item on MPTCP API


On Jul 26, 2016, at 7:35 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:

Christoph,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6897#section-5.3 is “Sockets Interface Extensions by the Basic MPTCP API”
(also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6897#appendix-A “Appendix A. Requirements on a Future Advanced MPTCP API”)

Ok, I see. Fair enough. Extension to RFC6897 seems fine to me then.


Cheers,
Christoph


phil

From: cpaasch@apple.com<mailto:cpaasch@apple.com> [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
Sent: 22 July 2016 09:48
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R <philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>>
Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG <multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential new work item on MPTCP API

Hello,

On Jul 21, 2016, at 5:43 PM, philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:
Yesterday Olivier presented about his & Benjamin’s recent work on MPTCP socket api. We didn’t have much discussion whether to add this to the charter. One comment was that any work should build on /reference RFC6897.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-mptcp-4.pdf
Please can you comment whether you see this as a useful work item, or you think it shouldn’t be worked on, or how it should be adapted to something you think the WG should work on.

yes, I think it is a very useful work item and am willing to contribute to this work.

I'm not sure whether this can be seen as an update to 6897. I'm under the impression that 6897 takes a different approach, giving users a high-level overview of how using MPTCP might look like to an application that is talking to a TCP-socket (which happens to end up using MPTCP).

Olivier's work seems to rather make MPTCP entirely explicit to the application. So, I think both works take a different approach.



To help prompt the discussion, here’s a very first version of some possible charter text
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.

RFC6897 was Informational – would this new Milestone be Informational or Experimental?

I think it should be Informational.


Christoph




Thanks
phil

Philip Eardley
Research and Innovation
This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you.
We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
British Telecommunications plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England no: 1800000

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