Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

Matt Sargent <matt.sargent@epeerless.com> Tue, 25 April 2017 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <matt.sargent@epeerless.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 5B49C13166F for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 71Oxfl_cF-TT for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cal1-mh779.smtproutes.com (cal1-mh779.smtproutes.com [208.70.91.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFB413167B for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Katharion-ID: 1493136761.38176.cal1-mh779
Received: from mail.epeerless.com ([74.203.78.194]) by cal1-mh779.smtproutes.com [(192.69.16.145)] with ESMTP via TCP (TLSv1.2/TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA); 25 Apr 2017 16:12:41 +0000
Received: from exchange03.peerlesstech.local (192.168.1.7) by exchange03.peerlesstech.local (192.168.1.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1236.3; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:12:37 -0400
Received: from exchange03.peerlesstech.local ([::1]) by exchange03.peerlesstech.local ([::1]) with mapi id 15.00.1236.000; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:12:37 -0400
From: Matt Sargent <matt.sargent@epeerless.com>
To: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>
CC: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "lars@netapp.com" <lars@netapp.com>, "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AQHSvd7A7vsWLDzMLE69PvbsKDlgyQ==
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:12:36 +0000
Message-ID: <08E2585C-258B-4004-9C47-79F080C099FC@epeerless.com>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <3F6DAF4F-87AD-411E-96A6-4FB52FF83F6D@netapp.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <225E7ED6-F614-4216-BF01-1E6E30605A3B@netapp.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D65@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <fde4be28d9b6474bbde2d92c817dfecb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <fde4be28d9b6474bbde2d92c817dfecb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [139.88.44.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <244B4D06AEB2F9498D39FD976CB94FC1@epeerless.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/v0NV-y7rnjQRaHeQs_RMma8ZbEA>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:13:10 -0000

Hi all,

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:11 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify our interpretation of the various hums during the meeting.
> 
> We interpreted them as indicating there was one topic that it was worthwhile doing a consensus call on. We did not interpret the hums as indicating clear consensus that we merely needed to confirm on the list. 
> 
> So far we see:
> In favour: 
> christian.jacquenet@orange.com
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> William Ivancic <ivancic@syzygyengineering.com>; 
> Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@lip6.fr>;   
> Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>; 
> David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>; 
> Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com 
> Robert Skog <robert.skog@ericsson.com>; 
> Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>; 
> Costin Raiciu <costin.raiciu@cs.pub.ro>; 
> 
> Against:  
> Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>;
> Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>; 
> Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com>;
> 

You can add me to the against list. I am largely in line with Lars and Juliusz.

Thanks,
Matt