Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

Hello Phil & all,

to simplify collaboration, we are now hosting the draft on github at https://github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis <https://github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis>.
People can submit pull-requests and issue-reports there.

We added the text for TFO and Olivier's MP_FASTCLOSE proposal, and will release a new version of the draft soon, before the deadline for IETF 101.

Cheers,
Christoph

> On Jan 30, 2018, at 12:54 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> 
> Yes, please can you provide text as soon as possible. It was agreed to add text back in July.....
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com] 
> Sent: 30 January 2018 06:45
> To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com>
> Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis
> 
> On 29/01/18 - 13:42:48, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Is there any news or plans about the list of items to finalise the bis?
> 
> Currently, there isn't yet an implementation of SHA-256. I will see what I can do (if someone wants to give it a shot, that would be great! Code is at https://multipath-tcp.org :-)).
> 
>> Also, the bis needs re-activating, as the draft is about to expire
> 
> We posted an update of draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-02 a few months back. Could we integrate this in the bis before we finalize it? I can provide the text for it.
> 
> 
> Christoph
> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> phil
>> 
>> 
>> From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
>> philip.eardley@bt.com
>> Sent: 23 October 2017 09:52
>> To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis
>> 
>> Hi,
>> << Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the 
>> only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?>> I was wondering if there was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect.
>> Thanks
>> phil
>> From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
>> Sent: 26 July 2017 15:46
>> To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R 
>> <philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>>
>> Subject: Finishing RFC6824bis
>> 
>> We are close to finalising the bis and being able to WG Last call and send it to the IESG. Here's a list of actions. If we've forgotten anything, or anyone has another mod /addition to the bis, please say.
>> 
>> 1.      Make the changes agreed - see email below.
>> 
>> 2.      Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?
>> 
>> 3.      Chairs /all - list of changes between RFC & bis, along with a short justification
>> 
>> 4.      Chairs /all - a short justification for obsoleting RFC6824
>> 
>> 5.      Chairs /all - List of implementations of the protocol & bis (ie a check of which parts are implemented once or also in iOS)
>> Our proposed plan is that once the various parts of #1 are done, we'll do a WGLC. Items 3, 4 & 5 are things that will be useful to the IESG. Item 2 is certainly something that would be nice to have - if there'll be a significant delay implementing it, then we should discuss whether to wait, or whether it's acceptable to progress without an implementation of this part.
>> Finally a reminder that the plan is that RFC6824bis advances on the 
>> Standards track
>> 
>> 
>> From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
>> Sent: 26 July 2017 08:51
>> To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: Changes to RFC6824bis
>> 
>> Hi,
>> During the discussions in Prague, we had good agreement about the 
>> following change to the bis. This is a change to the wire protocol. 
>> Please say as soon as possible if you disagree with this change, 
>> otherwise we'll go ahead and make this change:-
>> 
>> Remove address identifier from MP-PRIO, as it can be used as an attack.
>> 
>> Explanation at 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WWWaQ3AKWEMgsBSPKc_
>> R9Ct_YoI and follow up emails. The issue was briefly summarised during 
>> the Friday meeting in Prague - eg see the etherpad for a summary 
>> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-mptcp?useMonospace
>> Font=true
>> 
>> Alan - are you ok to make this change please?
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> In addition, we agreed in principle to the following (informational) changes to the bis - exact text to be proposed.
>> 
>> 2. Guidance about MPTCP & TFP interactions, based on https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.pdf - Christoph & Olivier, please propose text.
>> 
>> 3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal.
>> Best wishes,
>> Phil & Yoshi
>> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> multipathtcp mailing list
>> multipathtcp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
> 