Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item

Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> Mon, 14 November 2016 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
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 0A8AC129420 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uclouvain.be
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 dk7e3JUrErpL for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B97C129415 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mbpobo.dhcp.info.ucl.ac.be (mbpobo.dhcp.info.ucl.ac.be [130.104.228.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: obonaventure@smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9D8F67DA14; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:36:17 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be B9D8F67DA14
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1479108977; bh=2WNJRR6Xf3p7aInLIW0TznQTCwFnqDQHMj67OaPBQNA=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=LICNugX0GbVr9IvVuMYQflwHlZbc4cjG+WTgGXndGgOvR0b//G/EyIm8EKAWndxPQ uvZ/jO9HzvS9WZUUh5lq0Wf+vYqCkvvBNLcp+Pau/Oi1xLtIz/HWCU1EfxmPXPTh8C ingRIHg7fCPKhMgTceYDRkELdotsaIOwI6g5cmfM=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-3
References: <0898853c01b245aa8b3c45c9da478d6a@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <286B053B-7E5E-4FD8-A767-DAC55E8D42C9@gmail.com> <1479105129326.45083@bt.com>
To: philip.eardley@bt.com, alan.ford@gmail.com
From: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <8d80e53d-bf2e-32a8-0d26-6fea6e852222@uclouvain.be>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:36:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1479105129326.45083@bt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-Information:
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: B9D8F67DA14.A7081
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/bzKVECSiyzbr6G8Kly72v3C-fgw>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 07:36:26 -0000

Phil,

> i think we should move beyond "exploring whether it would be useful".
>
>
> i'd like us to assess proposed solutions. i think we should say this is
> what we're doing - at the moment we've had quite a lot of discussion
> about one proposal. we should give the chance for other proposals,
> and make the discussion more structured (what are the assessment
> criteria).
>

Totally agree. Let's ask for proposals described in drafts at the next 
IETF meeting and decide based on detailed documents and not based on a 
few sentences exchanged by email. Details matter


Olivier