Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com> Mon, 05 March 2018 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <cpaasch@apple.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 3D5E51200C1 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 23:13:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.309 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com
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 7x6kRMhkVcvo for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-in5.apple.com (mail-out5.apple.com [17.151.62.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5F03127076 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1520233993; x=2384147593; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=p70qZfFCyU6ix7FoSxK3oZRcCGm/oLhvddA6LG35NWU=; b=ubhE63iPyPAIC+9ZEVl2ePSSxATAMp2W48bqIss4JPLxLYc064hGPIRYmIjZUfVk 35ZqZ5kfoYZ1kFIXDh0L8yL2RYYb4tpu2fogyawpz/pEwkKMSg0obpQhva8ZupQ5 x0icSGXI298FubRHJSjDqHAEOpeK8vDLzKDcHweuWlbgPKGArfVFtuRy9q0K+pRk lEB6zZKtUXBqWo0KQL30j67l1gl1OPG+M+dSbsUpWKloGy3mAFVs55fpkIF3WMP5 FhhBJXJANdsoJAG+LGhV+wUrP9nQUf9JDp54a2Vw2odu5uN6dw8TxRUQYMpUkX66 4hz9L96Ks5v2yzuaBaAtHA==;
Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com [17.128.113.67]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in5.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id C1.D5.13704.90EEC9A5; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e13-efdff70000003588-e9-5a9cee09e790
Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com [17.128.115.204]) by relay2.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id B2.61.26650.90EEC9A5; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Received: from localhost ([17.234.33.58]) by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P53002AEW21AN80@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com>; Sun, 04 Mar 2018 23:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Sender: cpaasch@apple.com
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 23:13:13 -0800
From: Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>
To: philip.eardley@bt.com
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Message-id: <20180305071313.GL2038@MacBook-Pro-4.local>
References: <8efe9632021940bbac21fc1d12fa4539@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <162e9b4c97b44700affb0b1096cdea7e@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <fd278cd1838543b69858e50d781ea8bd@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <20180130064527.GC689@MacBook-Pro.local> <cbe5b5b0e8564e4fb1bb82f67f2c0e71@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <B76389E8-1288-4B8D-88AA-53BB86E7270F@apple.com> <f6a44c3af4974dd9992e1a68125ddb1b@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-reply-to: <f6a44c3af4974dd9992e1a68125ddb1b@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDorMv5bk6UwaYnehafV19ns1i2dgWj A5NH25fJTB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mp40dbFUnDasuLw/HlMDYx9+l2MnBwSAiYS sw9uZOti5OIQEljNJLFzzVxWmMSpqb2MILaQwCFGiWUvy0FsXgFBiR+T77F0MXJwMAvISxw8 LwsSZhaQlnj0dwY7hK0l8f1RKwvEzAYmiRfP1oDNERaQlOi+c4cZxGYRUJW4+3QmE4jNBtTw 9nY72F4RoJoV21exQQwCsv9+YoXoNZBoa+1kgrjBXKLp6gFWiAUPmCWetO5lAUlwCoRL/Px5 EWyZqICyxLrFJxkhnpnAJnFmZs0ERpFZSH6YhfDDLCQ/zELywwJGllWMQrmJmTm6mXmmeokF BTmpesn5uZsYQZEw3U54B+PpVVaHGAU4GJV4eHfkzYkSYk0sK67MPcQozcGiJM675ebMKCGB 9MSS1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2Mp7gL76tHXrkWsKtb5fa+80caGOyr72zvf+jsFlVg /bD/aeduw08if45LaNQU8FzRn3Lv/PmLEy93siS6uvyL8d36rH3OtrX2Rf+fNjZsP8Nbx7hN yfOa2MWPac0Lr+pF71Hfuph9zfqZmToa7//HeRvbiZ7oYXrBfPnDXsfCbQwcDZNXS0hEKbEU ZyQaajEXFScCAKGN7UdlAgAA
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FB8Rpfz3ZwogwcXNS0+r77OZrFs7QpG ByaPti+TmTyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXxoq2LpeC0ZcXh+fOYGhj79LsYOTkkBEwk Tk3tZQSxhQQOMUose1kOYvMKCEr8mHyPpYuRg4NZQF7i4HlZkDCzgLTEo78z2CFsLYnvj1qB SriAWhuYJF48WwM2R1hAUqL7zh1mEJtFQFXi7tOZTCA2G1DD29vtrCC2CFDNiu2r2CAGAdl/ P7FC9BpItLV2MkHcYC7RdPUAK8SCB8wST1r3soAkOAXCJX7+vAi2TFRAWWLd4pOMExgFZyG5 exbC3bOQ3D0Lyd0LGFlWMQoUpeYkVhrpJRYU5KTqJefnbmIEh26h8w7GY8usDjEKcDAq8fDu yJsTJcSaWFZcmQsMIw5mJRFeM1egEG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcd6WnzOjhATSE0tS s1NTC1KLYLJMHJxSDYwph6KqRH5vMDzWK32P49THlROFZqYl7phi9e3zkp41Oi2Xe1knxXxO SFYOa9HOfSJ17Nba5llqM+Yam3o1ZsxUtVA427ehv+uX44cLWjv+7UtJft9mk+WQ37Fd+Xcy b0PBqhJ/dUthiZ2Td8gd6uSTyVf6eW/pgUX73EQnPw9cuH+fddNElQ1KLMUZiYZazEXFiQC2 1hZAWQIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/gzQB4JkXiRFZ5Ds837qY8Pvc6xc>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis
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: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 07:13:16 -0000

Hello Phil,

On 22/02/18 - 08:21:50, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> Christoph,
> Thanks for working on it.
> Re MP-FASTCLOSE - this is based on the thread at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/fI2cgcRxttl20HyRs_QkDgXT9cM  This didn't reach a definitive conclusion in favour, but there were no objections. If anyone objects, please shout (I suggest the default is to add this text)
> Re TFO - this is about the interactions of TFO & MPTCP as described at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.pdf and in the related draft. This was agreed earlier (26 July 2017 email) in principle, people should check the exact text.
> Referring back to this earlier email (26 july)
> 
> >>3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal.
> 
> Suggest we drop this, unless there's proposed text in this next version (before ietf)

sounds good to me.

> Also, << Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?  I was wondering if there was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect.>>
> I'm assuming you haven't had time to implement this

Yes, I didn't had the time yet to implement this.


Christoph

> Best wishes,
> phil
> 
> From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
> Sent: 18 February 2018 22:08
> To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com>;
> Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG <multipathtcp@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis
> 
> Hello Phil & all,
> 
> to simplify collaboration, we are now hosting the draft on github at https://github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis.
> People can submit pull-requests and issue-reports there.
> 
> We added the text for TFO and Olivier's MP_FASTCLOSE proposal, and will release a new version of the draft soon, before the deadline for IETF 101.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Christoph
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 30, 2018, at 12:54 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, please can you provide text as soon as possible. It was agreed to add text back in July.....
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpaasch@apple.com<mailto:cpaasch@apple.com> [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2018 06:45
> To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>>
> Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis
> 
> On 29/01/18 - 13:42:48, philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> Is there any news or plans about the list of items to finalise the bis?
> 
> Currently, there isn't yet an implementation of SHA-256. I will see what I can do (if someone wants to give it a shot, that would be great! Code is at https://multipath-tcp.org :-)).
> 
> 
> Also, the bis needs re-activating, as the draft is about to expire
> 
> We posted an update of draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-02 a few months back. Could we integrate this in the bis before we finalize it? I can provide the text for it.
> 
> 
> Christoph
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> phil
> 
> 
> From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>
> Sent: 23 October 2017 09:52
> To: multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis
> 
> Hi,
> << Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the
> only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?>> I was wondering if there was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect.
> Thanks
> phil
> From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
> Sent: 26 July 2017 15:46
> To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
> <philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com%3cmailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>>>
> Subject: Finishing RFC6824bis
> 
> We are close to finalising the bis and being able to WG Last call and send it to the IESG. Here's a list of actions. If we've forgotten anything, or anyone has another mod /addition to the bis, please say.
> 
> 1.      Make the changes agreed - see email below.
> 
> 2.      Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?
> 
> 3.      Chairs /all - list of changes between RFC & bis, along with a short justification
> 
> 4.      Chairs /all - a short justification for obsoleting RFC6824
> 
> 5.      Chairs /all - List of implementations of the protocol & bis (ie a check of which parts are implemented once or also in iOS)
> Our proposed plan is that once the various parts of #1 are done, we'll do a WGLC. Items 3, 4 & 5 are things that will be useful to the IESG. Item 2 is certainly something that would be nice to have - if there'll be a significant delay implementing it, then we should discuss whether to wait, or whether it's acceptable to progress without an implementation of this part.
> Finally a reminder that the plan is that RFC6824bis advances on the
> Standards track
> 
> 
> From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
> Sent: 26 July 2017 08:51
> To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org%3cmailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>>>
> Subject: Changes to RFC6824bis
> 
> Hi,
> During the discussions in Prague, we had good agreement about the
> following change to the bis. This is a change to the wire protocol.
> Please say as soon as possible if you disagree with this change,
> otherwise we'll go ahead and make this change:-
> 
> Remove address identifier from MP-PRIO, as it can be used as an attack.
> 
> Explanation at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WWWaQ3AKWEMgsBSPKc_
> R9Ct_YoI and follow up emails. The issue was briefly summarised during
> the Friday meeting in Prague - eg see the etherpad for a summary
> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-mptcp?useMonospace
> Font=true
> 
> Alan - are you ok to make this change please?
> 
> --
> 
> In addition, we agreed in principle to the following (informational) changes to the bis - exact text to be proposed.
> 
> 2. Guidance about MPTCP & TFP interactions, based on https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.pdf - Christoph & Olivier, please propose text.
> 
> 3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal.
> Best wishes,
> Phil & Yoshi
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
> 
>