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

Ian Swett <> Tue, 08 December 2020 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8219B3A0AB1 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:14:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 g-mgn_8Qe4fw for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4E263A0AA3 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w127so23558ybw.8 for <>; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:14:01 -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=Lem3pVIZYqtlGEl2C+gLE+JK27TFNBvm3ecytyc9/8I=; b=dRaOfNpSqloaScZ+k+9Y+AsZk+RPwdtWYz46nWcKnUssbYq+q4MMO4JTmwuZec5VTy 11ojbetuIIAOIWMkwWe9edXU534hqu1sPmzruqfigKHaBsJ8Y0WO1RdrgFWzfH/JWy/l dKtGsaSDF/BXfVoSyI8AMJwU15y1oOR0M9UBFsAi+bw/Q/XNHlgfc3Pos4HZI40Ehv9S F55uE0CXUYBK8Sfb3I8tAk/RIpVuROAU2YWLbI9hQmPtJ2vaV7jfM1KcVUHseTe3RzMy KUaYvVZMZdVLPHjynSy1GY8eGQLmnEjrmXY5U8ZxGEkWCyCdctkGtGO+iLbWKtHoP0XA s3mw==
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=Lem3pVIZYqtlGEl2C+gLE+JK27TFNBvm3ecytyc9/8I=; b=i0WxW2k+HEdDxAINTP1QUjDFUvM5bFiAgD/hAyT15h2IrOj9V4GFPb8m4p+t2xlLyn AkiXLpAHx3oroH3fdPLUTjPUiDuW5XVT8srya9qF4t/g57louk+HiQ/TDVXulbp+sq6E sV2i9gxlJuKSI/DYscZYjHlOqvHYkJhR4P+yUmuec+M18hzO+zZEAcORoj4IPKXS4vot Md8rcYIxjbpbTLfvKf9V9yDeYy6HHIqbC1EAL5sPTsGu7dIViHzyNWERBfIPDMPm9iyZ 0krQo4I9EvMBzay2dZdu+2ZnXJYpnHSrkHywK4DBw0+qU3fSC1arPuAriNMZSc78EzXG YRzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wmhW3Ol9GMhfxcKDCF+nfDp6ziu0wv44RXjvckr7aNG1QqqjS 1JV1a3nB9/gOiSHo/OrifU9eLrKqIGdE0Z/2NyCAZw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzP0M/pMuu3F3R1mzdEyhoIIgQcFDxh0ZOZxGeJkz1yFpnGwwaKgL3FsX8kOPLQmErjwnJ6SerLv/cB8IPAaZM=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:e694:: with SMTP id d142mr8686448ybh.494.1607462040740; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:14:00 -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: Ian Swett <>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:13:49 -0500
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="000000000000ee310b05b5fa6b29"
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 21:14:04 -0000

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:07 PM Behcet Sarikaya <>

> Hi Lars,
> Sorry I did not understand this email and found it very negative.

I would disagree with this characterization.  I believe Lars summary is
realistic and reflects the reality of the discussion I've observed.

> 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.

I see this as a recurring thread and I don't think that a draft having more
revisions is by itself an indication it should be the primary choice for
adoption.  I think that draft is overly complex as it stands today, but I
agree that having multiple PN spaces is fairly appealing in a general

> Also I am not sure if it is a good idea to be not so cooperative with a
> very important organization like 3GPP.
> So I suggest a deep rewrite of this reply.
> My 3 cents.
> Behcet
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 12:02 PM Lars Eggert <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> FYI, below is a draft of our intended response to the recent Liaison
>> Statement "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions" which we intend to send next
>> week.
>> Please feel free to send comments.
>> Thanks,
>> Lars and Lucas
>> --
>> Thank you for the update on your architectural design and your intended
>> standardization timeline.
>> Multipath support for QUIC remains under active discussion in the IETF
>> QUIC working group. While multiple design proposals for such an extension
>> have been proposed, it remains uncertain for the time being if the WG will
>> come to consensus on adopting a work item on multipath QUIC, and if so,
>> which individual proposal it would be based on and whether or not it would
>> satisfy your architectural design. We unfortunately also cannot predict
>> whether the WG discussion will have sufficiently progressed by March 2021
>> for such a consensus to emerge.
>> Kind regards,
>> Lucas Pardue and Lars Eggert, QUIC Working Group chairs