Re: Take multipath to a BoF

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

(no hats here)

If we had no sense of the use cases, then a  non-wg-forming BoF to discuss
> them might be a useful step.  I've seen enough of them on this and other
> threads to not believe that's needed, but I also won't object if other
> folks want that.  But ultimately, *I think the work has to remain part of
> the core transport work on QUIC*.  Without that, I think you get MP-QUIC
> as a distinct transport from QUIC, rather than enabling QUIC to both path
> switch and run over concurrent paths.  That's a substantially worse
> outcome, at least in my opinion. I don't work for Apple, but I will
> champion them for a moment without speaking for them:  I am convinced by
> their use cases alone that this work is worth doing in the IETF.
>
>
Depending on what you mean, I'm not sure I agree with the bolded part.
There is almost certainly some amount of protocol (frame types, etc) that
have to be defined in QUIC, and I agree that this should happen in the WG.

But there are other more interesting problems (scheduling, congestion
control, etc) that are applicable to all the failover-capable transports
(MPTCP, SCTP, QUIC). I could be persuaded otherwise, but I think the latter
is best done not in QUIC, but instead either in TSVWG or a WG purpose-build
to do so.