Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My BoF report: multipath)

Lucas Pardue <> Wed, 02 December 2020 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61153A14AE; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:38:07 -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 g47azk3of71G; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:38:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B91723A13EB; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v22so4838899edt.9; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 09:38:05 -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=qb8yEDbiDgh7FZJ+bGmHT3YiQO4dQaP7eh3yA2zuGo8=; b=nboljnow6GaeplfgEyxuV7rZtEbjpcGwzykjvTSZwbAJbA1z5Oj1LJyhW8+SzTQ3sR RK2ziZH3DRvcm+734p43T5i2dHrhBhnmxzlNyteCCVZA2zgmS+YMBpEV0jsIEUTk4Oeb VZN7XORz2mTqkfgxDITBkixMUZCt3PcUVaV4XZmfLRUT60SOWzNC7A7b2xnk1XoCXnAF A1w9SWmqFsFFgO5b7MRwf0J2MK8spRa5OWegI0KQogSFktFC8lbh+zkqxA8vW1C+MvTZ U1DOZn1ILtCcgYDy3Ct0lWCdZAJex7SoArXYOxLLNx4Zg+uPBf9CDQonU6nnyKap0X5/ SjXA==
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=qb8yEDbiDgh7FZJ+bGmHT3YiQO4dQaP7eh3yA2zuGo8=; b=HU7olUyTt9zmKp3uXZiHIJ6pSy9NwVulJMHSH9ZxF8mMCrdMffm9Ca4v2b1KIApw90 sViGPU8fsbO7dWQ4Mwua0Vet43QtEWZj2860iAcgx307l3OrjrZYO4W0+xsrCRyrye7e HDO12lNODnfsilA+ZYUjFNhACrC85svSpB78X+WSmWEmgv9VLw6QgCteVRQNXEMFh7+E dLabIDGDh7BHtvb4FH+NR/sHlPtgHdES2A77xoM2o8oJswanhNv9PJTGlDlPYZQSeDF+ aAVhJm0CX2Ydcv3awutMEZK5wuvlMu3msv7CtQFuGshh3G6jULJVtjUg6ESkyAdi6IW8 zcSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wQmIAxrtPMXX5UMiY6Rjg7gxFRpwgK9aT2v5rQC7C01fsikSP pnnw9MPXdjyVXYzYZFIbmB0HEBQnzvLURZ3QqRs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzDlihR6IwZnOAoFCIzQRb9z7Jl6+MnJKIClSUQuyKQ5y2TKvNrP8PPVKn6XKVOA+jBp0CwLvUD8xGkRQM8H6M=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:8f06:: with SMTP id 6mr1026176edy.39.1606930684009; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 09:38:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 17:37:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My BoF report: multipath)
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Cc: Ian Swett <>,, Mirja Kuehlewind <>, Eric Kinnear <>, Roland Zink <>, "" <>, Christian Huitema <>, QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000099615c05b57eb4b2"
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 17:38:08 -0000

Hi all,

Just a reminder that this thread, and Ian's comment that we're picking at,
predates the "Next steps for Multipath" email that Lars sent on November 20

There's levels of nuance here: a self-test experiment, interoperable
experiments in developer environments, experiments that emulate a
production-like deployment, experiments on in-situ production equipment,
and so on. Interest, ability and time in all of these levels is not

So my _personal_ take is that folks would like to establish confidence in a
multipath design, as if it were deployed in the production environment that
it is intended, before adopting it as a solution. We've seen before with
stream priorities that a rush to design a signalling mechanism, while
punting on scheduling, can result in defining something that is not
generally useful - the antithesis of standardisation. I think it's fine to
have the logical separation between signalling and scheduling but the
practical engineering reality is that they get deployed together.


[1] -

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:08 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> wrote:

> Hi, Ian,
> I'm not Mirja, of course,
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:29 AM Ian Swett <> wrote:
>> Thanks Mirja, that deployment setup sounds like it could make it
>> difficult to get deployment experience prior to publishing an RFC?  Given
>> the complexity of multipath, shipping an RFC without deployment experience
>> seems unappealing to me, but maybe there is an opportunity to get some
>> deployment experience earlier?
> At least some of the presentations at the October virtual interim on QUIC
> multipath were not 3GPP ATSSS-related.
> I agree with Mirja's point on the difficulty of obtaining experience at
> scale in a 3GPP network for an experiment, but I'm hoping there is enough
> commonality between other people interested in multipath and QUIC that
> SOMEONE will be able to report experiments for a proposal that would also
> work for 3GPP.
> That's one of the reasons I started working on
> - to see what was common across people with different use cases.
> Best,
> Spencer