Re: Draft response to New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"

Lucas Pardue <> Tue, 08 December 2020 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E963A0982 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:25:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id id_mwSpMNEg1 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:25:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D180B3A09CF for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k4so19165387edl.0 for <>; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:25:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jt0icjpJ473e5S9om/dRpeR+5FLvSxINDDgc8N5zO/Q=; b=gpGFlYKjoInYYuRRko/hbBDzHxJ1TM96KDhBICkQQgD5l4LKMLdQqTVffEx0o8ufzn BTgpwI1L7aE3x0q/gOHphBjmxbDAsZrb2aP04ji+/kbYmgfJmtpYjNIff26pMAC9bmCb tNcjtUsHAqh0oTr7ZFQadqaNn6ao85+JxM1tBwz4pfKNPfGBzfHOiYU3AffetQhaQD3u DA+Ymh+o1I8aaLjZf58jhv1FMjO7IMTQVnWbv2DTb9Q7y0k/4/70rNixNmu9I6Y7TkEs 1axmOdZ1th0IEBVGMOJajf+ZbxKlu7/hpX0GCMiJgMSvkLrW0kBVEVpFiJKsCAl+wVuI haRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jt0icjpJ473e5S9om/dRpeR+5FLvSxINDDgc8N5zO/Q=; b=ffgECl3BM1H5XoD4azXVTiZoItkZKG5lxML6DamAikORD2OvPP9Zag/hOMP4exavwp ZG1rUfy2N/rPpLBMScEElrjzPxn4IcEnsTu/A31txnE3eiEOlTQSiJ9OitDRTxm3CcTO gKfFzbRrosRu3c2t2729dsMSHJfB4lI8MR7r66MVz2Pa8jdKO8MRa/1Gja0iq3Zf8mWZ oWmZP5Z9PMVW2ig97SxQsEUQkhmp9dqibxtxR+VGKC4wrGFP1lCTrNpdpaxAgwD6T4bC w921wrptFjDf5zaz9eeTEE/fNvRc7o/i7GFxKbAWrR1ZFRThqP9eRty6ALiDFDU46bLy B/mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532o9xKOyNu6c6+eo2EQ2H00KQ8XghqrC666UJRQfX7eCsMqNFqo oJClbsljoOdtYvhkx/eky7gltPpMUNftuLjOA00=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjA+xUVzshp+iSl05wLohpoj2oFvQUnP7BWxQvoG+LRevg6Rs9oGIQOLXQZq22z0zNTYOD/VLK2QYwKMQWANA=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:dcd0:: with SMTP id w16mr26648671edu.229.1607462708952; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:25:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <7047_1606815783_5FC61027_7047_384_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E3A64B1F1@OPEXCAUBM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <LEJPR01MB0635396C6C147F869AFDCD14FAF40@LEJPR01MB0635.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <1927_1606850062_5FC6960E_1927_422_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E3A64C3E8@OPEXCAUBM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <LEJPR01MB0635AA0C1EF193B23922FFDFFAF20@LEJPR01MB0635.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:24:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Draft response to New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"
Cc: Lars Eggert <>, QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c1c42c05b5fa93c6"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:25:13 -0000

Hi Behcet,

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 21:07 Behcet Sarikaya, <> wrote:

> Hi Lars,
> Sorry I did not understand this email and found it very negative.
> You mention individual proposals, I saw 4 listed somewhere before.
> However, the one by Huitema is not a solution perse (no offense intended)
> it addresses one issue it is based on his view that multiple paths should
> have one packet numbering.
> I thought that deconinck draft was the main one which already has been
> revised so many times.

The propose liason statement is based on our understanding of the WG
following the multipath-focused interim meeting and subsequent discussion.
This highlighted different use-cases for multipath and different possible
technical designs. For example, we were presented with Alibaba's use case
which decided not to use the design in draft-deconninck.

That there is more than one possible design, and that there is active
discussion about philosophical design details, is a signal that the WG is
still forming consensus. And we should provide the time needed to explore
these aspects further.

> Also I am not sure if it is a good idea to be not so cooperative with a
> very important organization like 3GPP.

Consesus is participant driven, we encourage folks to participate in the
QUIC WG and continue the discussion, in line with the guidance Lars
previously sent out.

> So I suggest a deep rewrite of this reply.

We welcome specific suggestions from you or other WG members.

Kind regards