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

Behcet Sarikaya <> Tue, 08 December 2020 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F113A09F9 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:07:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 kKAmQo0jNUDu for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CF3B3A09F6 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x2so17369548ybt.11 for <>; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:07:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=zTAHivaLGGg8unCrFRDMGLhs70Rhqw7O6aGMbnc8id8=; b=cJ5Vdx39U+GReFKu4+wwY5MFK2r3/rIGafOE2pWufj+mIzJXGsWmrOW6mqTD4/jVBd IwQUEXEn44iqjn7KhJll2OEP158dZyEaNXUEc9TYFcnMcPMqJGZXyw7vdlAsUM0NCbRz itMD+NFQPnnBS8IQUqtZ+lnikutUWGCCh+wYNh3j2dfeC4UW7jMdhI6bCkFofi4dZzEr wqag0+/GzuawJJWxfpFnbWaH1hH5wKqDYGw28oAkUdBrF9YYyZ1k6Hm+LNGnhJFWcC5Y V98w/sZgyM2n/jBsjay7VAOdGA7yZQUUdI77BiHDY+hHudR8LnqSRe5Vg345q5rCwbfW tgEg==
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zTAHivaLGGg8unCrFRDMGLhs70Rhqw7O6aGMbnc8id8=; b=JlsBYQ+uoIS+2Y7upCeTaPFaer61EquZbjIZZU/UCpLdDGpX6t9VB8ugwjKTJzVriR k1A2Wa0lNJVU7Hp+u7rjMKs2IKLHJen5IW72QB0qUr0rnpy9gNqjktMpl5AqiTKUOlXK vywQPaHvH4Lg3F4QoKJqOgpV6CgkVLZYsK+AUtHgL+YGTy+n2saXMSVhJzgWZ9Ro3FtK moUzjt2ypNW6cKrqPDvy/AH+NVV3dmQ1NV3Aq7MvtdG/urcIrLndlGOkZGw9Qcs2WiZW A0DceDWPBL6uhAbXIbidFJqVc33lZzSEnReGOpaRQMnIozjK46ldXGNJYoMs6mhJ/2Qa qssg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wMvO6MCvBCJoKkVShMkjVuJsRtGueQv8AjjwRLzDoUUp2v2Yh 0RiH3DomiWxxiAXqIN/PyWxixbodActghMoBW/RCBWBxDTw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhk+EGDe3/lysrnPbv1HPzOGZgUiWXwQc3zuAH+zlcN8+V/VPQ/tJLuTeT5z55CK4Gn9PHoQNYKxZPwFChHwA=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d416:: with SMTP id m22mr32422408ybf.318.1607461619738; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:06:59 -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: Behcet Sarikaya <>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:06:48 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Draft response to New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"
To: Lars Eggert <>
Cc: QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5abc905b5fa526c"
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 21:07:02 -0000

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.


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