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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

In the existence of multiple design proposals and seemingly multiple number
of drafts (3 + 1), as I was discussing with Mirja, IETF has a well known
process called

design team

to handle such cases. Why not form a design team and ask them to get a
unified design (and maybe possibly a draft to specify it).

IMHO a design team should be formed immediately, rather than the current
situation whereby different set of individuals discussing important key
design considerations on their own and reaching some conclusions on their
own and putting them in their own drafts.
 Let me finish like my friend Spencer Dawkings does always:
of course do the right thing.

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
>