Re: Preparing for discussion on what to do about the multipath extension milestone

[Olivier Bonaventure <[e-mail]>]

Lucas,
> 
> Many thanks for these resources. I'm slowly reading and digesting. 
> Quentin's Thesis I think has some good discussion about consideration 
> factors for an MP-QUIC abstract design, such as consideration of path 
> validation etc. I don't know if uniflow is the correct design but it 
> definitely helps to understand the motivation for it.
> 
> MP-QUIC appears to offer some things that conventional QUIC might not be 
> able to do*. But it, to me, also presents some problems that don't exist 
> today. As an individual commenter, not having an in-band signal for 
> uniflow prioritisation gives me cause for concern. If I were to deploy 
> an MP-QUIC general-purpose server, I don't have much confidence that I 
> could meet the use cases that clients want.

Prioritisation can be easily added to MPQUIC. It was not included in the 
current draft because we focused on the basic principles and did not 
want to add new features before the start of technical discussions on 
the mailing list. There are different ways to do prioritisation, 
starting from the one-bit solution used by MPTCP to other scenarios like 
putting an integer weigth on uniflows or limiting the bandwidth on a per 
uniflow basis, ...



Olivier