Re: [multipathtcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12.txt

Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com> Mon, 08 October 2018 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rahul.jadhav@huawei.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 045D3130DC0 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 ux3_o-fyFHUo for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 27C4712F1A5 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7C2EBC10C0886 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:49:22 +0100 (IST)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:49:18 +0100
Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.224]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:19:09 +0530
From: Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>
To: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>, multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUWyS1tUifss7J80qV8iz2l/pvMaUNN2+AgAgkreA=
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:49:09 +0000
Message-ID: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DCBF6F0@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <153857661587.9120.4590608359579290440@ietfa.amsl.com> <CC367F1F-06FC-4D12-83A2-81435191EA80@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC367F1F-06FC-4D12-83A2-81435191EA80@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-IN, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.157.44]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/qN0Mzr3juwy_mXn_5IaD0Bt_gis>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12.txt
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Oct 2018 13:49:30 -0000

Hello Alan,

Most of my comments from [1] are handled. Thank you.

Some comments based on the updated text:
1. Accepted comment#8 in [1] does not seem to be handled. I think it is important to be clarified that the value of "Address ID" has significance not only within a single connection but also only on the peer who generates the ID. Thus it is possible for peers to generate the same Address ID within a connection as well.
2. Thank you for removing the term "passive opener" throughout the document. The new text is much easier to understand.
3. Looks like comment#2 for explicitly mentioning the Reason Code for MP_TCPRST was not accepted. I understand we haven’t really got any feedback from the WG on this point but then I feel it is necessary to do this.
4. "make-before-break session" term is introduced after rewording ... I feel this term should be explained in terminology section.

Best,
Rahul

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/hpsqifbR00xRWJNZe-CYR7UtTyU


> -----Original Message-----
> From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alan Ford
> Sent: 03 October 2018 19:56
> To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12.txt
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I believe this new version addresses all last call/review comments we
> received for rfc6824bis, with the exception of adding a possible “changes
> since RFC6824” section.
> 
> Could all reviewers please check this new version and ensure we have
> handled your review comments appropriately?
> 
> Many thanks,
> Alan
> 
> > On 3 Oct 2018, at 15:23, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Multipath TCP WG of the IETF.
> >
> >        Title           : TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
> Addresses
> >        Authors         : Alan Ford
> >                          Costin Raiciu
> >                          Mark Handley
> >                          Olivier Bonaventure
> >                          Christoph Paasch
> > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12.txt
> > 	Pages           : 80
> > 	Date            : 2018-10-03
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   TCP/IP communication is currently restricted to a single path per
> >   connection, yet multiple paths often exist between peers.  The
> >   simultaneous use of these multiple paths for a TCP/IP session would
> >   improve resource usage within the network and, thus, improve user
> >   experience through higher throughput and improved resilience to
> >   network failure.
> >
> >   Multipath TCP provides the ability to simultaneously use multiple
> >   paths between peers.  This document presents a set of extensions to
> >   traditional TCP to support multipath operation.  The protocol offers
> >   the same type of service to applications as TCP (i.e., reliable
> >   bytestream), and it provides the components necessary to establish
> >   and use multiple TCP flows across potentially disjoint paths.
> >
> >   This document specifies v1 of Multipath TCP, obsoleting v0 as
> >   specified in RFC6824 [RFC6824] through clarifications and
> >   modifications primarily driven by deployment experience.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis/
> >
> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-12
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > multipathtcp mailing list
> > multipathtcp@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp