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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

Sorry I did not understand this email and found it very negative.

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.

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 <[e-mail]> 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
>