Re: Proposed response to Liaison Statement "LS on need for Multi-Path QUIC for ATSSS"

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

I changed “detail” to “contribute” in response to your email. I’m sorry if that didn’t fully capture your suggestions!

-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

> On May 14, 2020, at 05:56, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi, Lars, 
> 
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> incorporating the received feedback, we plan on sending the attached response shortly.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Lars
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Thank you for your input to our specifications.
>> 
>> Multipath capabilities for QUIC are currently under active discussion in the
>> IETF's QUIC WG. Several individual proposals have been made, but the group is
>> also considering whether the already-specified connection migration capabilities
>> are sufficient to cover the majority of use cases.
>> 
>> We encourage 3GPP to contribute their requirements for QUIC multipath capabilities
> 
> I had suggested using some other term than "requirements", because the liaison to the IETF came from SA2 (architecture) in 3GPP, not SA1 (requirements), and I'm concerned about this turning into a three-ring circus between SA2, SA1, and SA plenary (all of which communicate with each other through formal liaison statements approved at formal meetings). 
> 
> Perhaps I worry too much. Do the right thing, of course.
> 
> The rest of this response seems fine. Thanks for the quick reaction. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Spencer
>  
>> in an Internet-Draft, especially if the already-specified connection migration
>> capabilities are deemed insufficient. 3GPP's active involvement in any multipath
>> QUIC standardization would be the best way to remain informed of the progress of
>> any such work in the IETF.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Mark Nottingham, Lucas Pardue and Lars Eggert, QUIC Working Group chairs