Re: Preparing for discussion on what to do about the multipath extension milestone

[Olivier Bonaventure <[e-mail]>]

Ian,

> Given the responses, can we narrow down the way forward(ideally on a 
> different thread) to directions that are less open-ended?  I'll suggest 
> some options, but the chairs and/or ADs need to decide.
>   1) No future work on multipath in the QUIC WG, in the belief the 
> existing connection migration functionality is sufficient.
>   2) Adopt the existing draft as a starting point for QUIC 
> multipath(draft-deconinck-multipath-quic 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deconinck-multipath-quic>), with the 
> explicit goal of not expanding the scope of the document.
>   3) Adopting multipath as a core QUIC WG deliverable.
> 
> I favor #2, but these may not be the right options.  Normally I'd say 
> people should work this out in person, but that doesn't seem viable at 
> the moment.  I'm happy to set up a long(3-4+hr) Google Meet to discuss 
> this via videoconference if that helps move the discussion forward.

Thanks for proposing this excellent suggestions.

> Or we can form a design team, which typically takes O(3 months) to finish.
> 

I think that it would be useful to continue the technical discussion 
that has started. I'll leave up to the WG to decide how best to proceed. 
I'd also suggest to initially keep the scope of the multipath discussion 
narrow. We can update the draft to include the feedback received so far 
or collect issues on github and then work to address them


Olivier