Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 14 September 2016 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 79C6412B59F for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 1agJ3HqDvnQy for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 582EB12B76A for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26094 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2016 17:53:40 +0200
Received: from nb-10510.ethz.ch (HELO ?82.130.103.143?) (82.130.103.143) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 14 Sep 2016 17:53:40 +0200
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <147385003530.1966.83385935910172454.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e40ea11b-a44c-8d73-fcf6-9652a708ff1b@kuehlewind.net> <a914b74f-efab-8f01-3177-cdecd70ad0d2@cs.tcd.ie>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=c3=bchlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <ecbb4031-7002-5a39-b09f-df91ab1bce8c@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:53:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a914b74f-efab-8f01-3177-cdecd70ad0d2@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/m7Z265v4Xk5OZvLpss6pRKBKDAk>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mptcp-experience@ietf.org, mptcp-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)
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, 14 Sep 2016 16:09:42 -0000

With a very quick look, these seems all to be theoretical analysis while this 
draft is documenting actual deployment experience. Further the first hit here 
is an existing RFC, second hit is theoretical, and third hit is from the main 
authors of this draft which is part of the basis of this draft... so still 
the same answer.

Mirja


On 14.09.2016 17:34, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 14/09/16 16:25, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> actually the answer might be 'no'. But I guess the reason why they don't
>> talk about it, is because we don't have any reports here.
>
> Hmm, it seems that scholar at least has some references
> to stuff [1]. I've no clue if those're useful or not
> though - did anyone go looking? Be a shame to not include
> some if they were useful/relevant.
>
> Ta,
> S.
>
> [1]
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=MPTCP+security&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
>
>>
>> Mirja
>>
>>
>> On 14.09.2016 12:47, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mptcp-experience/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> I was a bit sad that there was no reporting of
>>> experiences with the security aspects of MPTCP.  Have
>>> we really learned nothing worth saying about that?
>>> Have we really seen no attacks on, or tailored to,
>>> MPTCP? It seems odd that the answer to both questions
>>> is "no."
>>>
>>>
>