Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dawkins-quic-multipath-questions-00.txt

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <> Mon, 07 December 2020 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902593A1164 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 00:09:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 QTHY2RfDS5ms for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 00:09:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB6853A1163 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 00:09:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o144so12191799ybg.7 for <>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:09:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uRnGIkofuKJFa2i24Pj85EgmyJ7cz63Wl5Tzjt6GLQo=; b=cSjfTZ304K/xfG5RUqihVAFPlmUJgrRtZi1/3iChQyxtoC9vFtdCOA8gKV1a79GAgU 2AbuPNf6QHsSl4kmfQqrb41LiqQZv96qaHm87E0nzVwLtbLlBksKKGI9OVtr8GUWrnc6 /qsF49D0F2BRLucxtFzFFKPJOscJBsDsJKuW3fPf77n6StC5MEB63XDsYJjFah1li+cH NB6bGefMV3CGYKPvbGd0ZkWOFGFb4hVy8Ydyo+GqOcKbqlazrq1VHL7OZErsx6j6tOsC ljsWI4UJ3SLzj7CjYuvE4KR6/4XYYDBkTXLSbPqb5PPXpsecP9uN2Gj1cf+kpQkSYNSj gZoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=uRnGIkofuKJFa2i24Pj85EgmyJ7cz63Wl5Tzjt6GLQo=; b=E0gxe3rdPCXQ/qLVif0Q0ORHUUXz9r05pXNXjZqSiFPqTOzzsWOFVLxCy+gM8Mxmi/ DpHV1eZNFgvpwVTWHS6M+Ogl1S/nD/AjhIi4O58C5WYpR8Ld3eC9+Bai2TGl4sjNxT47 Fa2Oy30Vgw2kvTe9EVCLgOVVk2A7COn2zCHL5pOdIT52MSLCvLWk/o7PW+Olmi5VhrOp ycPmVQE2ge++892mQJIG7A8z1YMKIyBdXF88ogi+I3izGnhpAp74CTXJ76wYREm4TqKe 1/f4XjKVq0XniyBwiq9SzKHC0IpetQ6sfknZCBfuVmRYDu2Q89K+ZqdQnpbKu/0/tNwW JPFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336cnB23DvgjGFNL/018TXhacwkBbyDz1TprCmeFT9r0pJ5sV7J gH8dcuZmDodcMqnVorQ2UnCEfjUz+H+YuKz/86s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwItpUIyiTESvQDPMfBmlTEXU0ZC505mOZNS1Ijluq6jwoJ9fu1xnfxummGuFG2TLjTlhViJDgZi+ByU2gEf08=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d713:: with SMTP id o19mr22096759ybg.378.1607328566818; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:09:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 00:09:26 -0800
From: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:09:26 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dawkins-quic-multipath-questions-00.txt
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>, IETF QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000433cef05b5db581c"
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 08:09:30 -0000

Thanks for working on this.

I’m still looking for a discussion on symmetric vs assymmetric multipath.

Today in QUIC v1 only the client can migrate.
Is multipath going to be the same, or can both endpoints initiate multiple

Kind Regards,
Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen

On 7 December 2020 at 06.27.12, Spencer Dawkins at IETF ( wrote:

Dear QUIC working group,

We've exchanged a lot of e-mail about what support for multiple paths in
QUIC might look like on the mailing list, and talked about this at the
October virtual interim meeting and at the QUIC session at IETF 109, and it
seemed good to me, to try to summarize the discussions we've had so far.

Because this topic is of interest outside the IETF, I thought it better to
put the summary in an Internet Draft, than somewhere in Github issues or
Slack, or on the mailing list.

I also want to apologize in advance if I've misstated things - if so,
please let me know. I'd point out this text in the draft:

   Please note well that this document reflects the author's current
   understanding of working group discussions.  It is likely that there
   are more questions than currently included in the document, and it is
   even more likely that some of the suggested answers are incomplete or
   (unlike the people in Section 1.1) completely wrong.  Contributions
   that add or improve questions and answers are welcomed, as described
   in Section 1.4.

As always, Do The Right Thing.



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <>
Date: Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 11:18 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for
To: Spencer Dawkins <>

A new version of I-D, draft-dawkins-quic-multipath-questions-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Spencer Dawkins and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-dawkins-quic-multipath-questions
Revision:       00
Title:          Questions for Multiple Paths In QUIC
Document date:  2020-12-06
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          13

   The IETF QUIC working group has been chartered to produce extensions
   that would "enable ... multipath capabilities" since the working
   group was formed in 2016, but because multipath was an extension,
   work on multipath, and the other extensions named in the charter,
   waited while work proceeded on the core QUIC protocol specifications.

   After the QUIC working group chairs requested publication for the
   core QUIC protocol specifications, they scheduled a virtual interim
   meeting to understand the use cases that various groups inside and
   outside the IETF were envisioning for multipath with QUIC.

   As part of that discussion, it became obvious that people had a
   variety of ideas about how multiple paths would be used, because they
   weren't looking at the same use cases, and so had different
   assumptions about how applications might use QUIC over multiple

   This document is intended to capture questions that have come up in
   discussions, with some suggested answers, to inform further
   discussion in the working group.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at

The IETF Secretariat