Re: [multipathtcp] 6824bis-11 review

[Xavier de Foy <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Alan for addressing the comments, and for the additional details you
provided. I agree with your responses, with just one possible clarification
below, and an answer to your question. There is no open issue with this
review, from my standpoint (the following points are minor).


>"The Address ID MUST uniquely identify the address for the sender of the
option (within the scope of the >connection), but the mechanism for
allocating such IDs is implementation specific."

Even after this rephrasing I still wonder if address ID #1 can designate an
IP address local to peer A, and the same ID #1 can (in the same session)
designate another IP address local to peer B. Would you find the following
phrasing clearer?

"The Address ID MUST uniquely identify the address within the scope of the
connection (uniqueness is only required among the IP addresses local to the
sender of the option), but the mechanism for allocating such IDs is
implementation specific."


>> *3.8. Error Handling
>>
>> - Is the list of errors complete? (e.g. ADD_ADDR errors seem to belong
to the same class as remove request)
>
>What kind of ADD_ADDR error are you thinking of?

For example: adding an address with an invalid HMAC, or invalid values in
some fields. Also (based on your recent edits) existing address ID but a
different IP address. More generally, the goal of my comment was just to
bring your attention on the fact that not all classes of errors may be
covered. But it's possible that the authors only wanted to cover high level
error handling strategies. So it's really an editorial choice, please feel
free to address this comment as you see fit, there is no need to follow-up
on this.

Best Regards,
Xavier.