RE: Multipath Milestones

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Yes I think Ian summarised things well.

>From my own perspective, changing milestone dates to <TBD>, <suspended until further notice> etc would give a more honest reflection of current status. Not sure if the datatracker allows such a thing.

Regards
Lucas
________________________________________
From: Jana Iyengar [[e-mail]]
Sent: 14 February 2018 21:33
To: Ian Swett
Cc: Eggert, Lars; Lucas Pardue; QUIC WG
Subject: Re: Multipath Milestones

I agree with Lars and Ian, and I presume this was left out inadvertently.

Lars: maybe the chairs could come up with a "fix" to the milestones and do a consensus call?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Ian Swett <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Lars, that was my interpretation as well.

I think the right path forward is for those particularly interested in multipath to experiment with QUIC extensions inside v1, once the extension mechanism is defined.  Once some experimentation has happened, we'll be in a better place to have an informed discussion about some of the points Christian raised in his multipath requirements draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-quic-mpath-req-01

The recent text being added about Connection Migration should lay some of the groundwork for adding second paths. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1012

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Eggert, Lars <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

On 2018-2-14, at 15:49, Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
This might be a bit pedantic but when the milestones were adjusted back in December, the Multipath extension milestones were left as originally stated (Nov ’17, May ’19).

Is there any intention to modify these? The Nov ’17 adoption has obviously been missed and I’m wondering what I would tell someone less familiar with the WG when they hypothetically asks me what that means.

yes, we need to update those milestones.

I can't recall that we explicitly discussed this when we discussed pushing the base-drafts milestones back. But to me personally, the decision to focus all efforts on v1 - and multipath not being part of v1 - implicitly meant that we'd not really start any real effort before the base-drafts are shipped off to the IESG. In other words, WG adoption would probably not happen before Nov 2018, and completion sometime in 2019 (?).

As I said, this is my personal interpretation - it would be good to know if this is the WG consensus.

Lars




-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------