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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 28 April 2017 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 001EB12EA7F for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 u9Fiy4ddfZMw for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E0C129C5E for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.240.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v3SFrika025550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>, "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51CDF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <9a803d8c-0c2a-9b5c-cd2a-fb4ce23ea3bd@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E52977@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <78A398AB-57BC-4CB2-BEE6-46704FA6E849@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E52E56@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <e96adf18-f116-f424-9067-74b38ced6eee@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5390A@OPEXCLILMA3.corpo! rate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4EDA1D3F-9041-40D3-8530-A38D05278AFD@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E539A3@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <e9bd13e1-908f-deea-f128-e232526015a4@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5B470@OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7c585e73-8349-7dfe-9656-86dd15b09ecd@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5E00F@OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <d4ef6fbf-4111-b688-f3a6-07435f63effe@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:53:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5E00F@OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/xp65BOBaVRhDvroHDVlRCfG4jIw>
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:57:45 -0000

Med,

There are two possibilities, as I already stated:

    a) this is a conventional proxy, which is fine with me

    b) this is a split-TCP proxy, which is out of scope IMO for this
group and I do not support

It's not feasible to endorse this work while letting this issue "float".

The current doc is fairly clear on being (b).

I have made my position clear and given the appropriate ADs a heads-up.

Joe