Re: [tcpm] WG status update

[<[e-mail]>]

> I don't believe that the MPTCP developers at the moment have made an attempt at minimizing their diff,

by running all the statements;on;the;same;line;separated;by;semi-colons;to;get;linecount;down?

> Does TCP-Rehash provide interesting functionality? Sure. Does it provide anything that MPTCP doesn't provide? No.

And it's fewer lines. A better question would be 'Is TCP-rehash missing anything important/necessary?'

> If we weren't already doing MPTCP, then TCP-Rehash might have been interesting.

That's not a good justification for not examining TCP-rehash.

I've seen other groups settle on a single solution very early, and then stick doggedly to that single solution and ignore other approaches. Fine for point solutions, but when there's a very large potential impact on the installed base, more due diligence on other approaches is called for imo.

> But since we are doing MPTCP, I simply don't see the point of specifying a
> subset of it in a way that is incompatible.

Lars, are you speaking as an individual contributor or as Area director here?

thanks

L.