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

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 21:07 Behcet Sarikaya, <[e-mail]> 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
Lucas