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

Behcet Sarikaya <> Tue, 15 December 2020 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E4A3A08D4 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:38:08 -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 083vZk36UalX for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:38:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48B3B3A0888 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:38:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k78so20600742ybf.12 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:38:06 -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=4q8tg7LWWl28hoXhxKA0977XoX7yf+OxdrB8wiQocEk=; b=JAGyTf0LQYQlDDtEDOfPnL/ILI0DhYwp9PYupFEsxHw16i71NPslD3XqUnTjTFnNzR 8crS9iPAE6kMwd4mgWhWV3MVkxS6d38/U78tckjxwiJCPP5336jQHWDfCFguyE2A6ra+ Q7QekF5kterc/gdQTifvlIrEbrqwQwbR84o8ZOooVjrjTeaCOGSC/4/iJUBzFBjvtHHm ve+OwN/2qtjBonrYqinN3xrEtDWSwMb/5CaiBQzbH5Wz0rrT/Dbzca8IzzujKDaDle5S UmUITLrJKOnTswngwKDFsg8gCBdx6jQrMdPh8AFx5jGu+Xf0d1hpdOr/8Ilyu7l69bDt 7yRg==
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=4q8tg7LWWl28hoXhxKA0977XoX7yf+OxdrB8wiQocEk=; b=HeHbk8rCA5DlwAB7wxBdEHRz/w0kbfk1at9nMQD/L07g42YRtLxH0h2C/brDjfXY87 23XpFfWaEqWkcFDMT/UYY5y7Xc5zYdIkDzcPWfixMkALKp1zE2KNw6FevqeZ9uyL0tRE JjCPv8/5H+ZnxrXd/QxW2LORcfhAWeZN5iCgLGQkHR/gDmxRvQoTyquCdcFami93vj+C 6mPsTDhnlyt+MOYGZqd7x8uumM7/m6or10ASLDgpuiOhO/9fXb8a97sAGhVxHVugIkyD uoCDV+YO3tyFOk4ZY77z6dGTqSJcNoCbHF6ZV0HhWknQJK2NiGS9dEjpt50HaOegeySO YdLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530dEky3l/0Oq0hwrEstlwpkODZW1KtDhckoBqK0g1mcY+LN9490 qvZOfGRPSrlNCvlNHuTy8lQq6JEpOtIuXUXcTx+yX7iFRFs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/Z2vXYAp2dBKFBifqllyQK63GPKS5+ZhZmW1q+VWe250ULFL84PntzZbBtroeQ4esrooMfLD4KpjVNPomJKs=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:23d7:: with SMTP id j206mr48137436ybj.243.1608075485444; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:38:05 -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, 15 Dec 2020 17:37:54 -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="00000000000014fd0e05b6894092"
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, 15 Dec 2020 23:38:08 -0000

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.

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