[tcpm] comments on draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00

Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 19 July 2020 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F2C3A08D8 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 04:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Js2f_sikQG9E for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 04:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6832C3A08D7 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 04:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com with SMTP id b205so3080023vkb.8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 04:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=38UkJVLTnoObcNr71/vOpZ/6lFhhNvV6GnUbMClPuEk=; b=UN4+d47kRvgw/er3/sfEnYzqQrqlZk/q9QMflYI5Fvccs9ceO4RW7Wu59AVn6EpD9B Q5gogCoSBo8mOrRP/Hp4eMnM8s4pwcMZJV/qOWln3DuyrCwP+QOsOpYlUI89/YITIpDa 6cdJFpPpoFN6CMhN/JTkxhZrX9HBKhhxU8gIKtnvMc/yvslurx/cRlizLQzEouRj8XKy QQtzDEhm5oV4gYWGnCbBOn5eN1iBH6cMMD2TfCtp4kr6L1AYByc43SPLodSgr/5nxXMd ftIBZnPyJb4vUKHjHrnUp32ppA7uhzaFPq5AtCH+2LrywPK2UsBlax4N/gO5p/akA2Cg Umfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=38UkJVLTnoObcNr71/vOpZ/6lFhhNvV6GnUbMClPuEk=; b=M10+MrqElodbXpdiXFn+A+JyLa9eNQNZSG2TkbN43i/ABnY3ZJQSRHiAgiHJa4gqpl MD8GVvuVEisrFAJgWsuLAMkUeBBiQmUa7/x38owaWkncuUte24tJxE9nxJ1BWLVKhvox Re6x9Jb1wn/y/EuiDSRNbmxzl/7EvPg5geakLUEN1FyFuiibnwwiqC3R+8ORMQzrPhY8 CC1qJpccnw89Auk0BT4cYNF5YFMRKAbZ3WhU+GC7sUmfkhe0qB5aX6qT7LSk+uqcnynl pQUTAUzvfvPu/TEYYQhs9XTWIUdtMCxpi52yfLT2L75pyjvz+BxoyJFr+S22QTYRiZAY 14ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wrOKUorUBbnDt3rVrNdSEv4/uQZJcABGsYbZ/7sfcu2T4On8U 8rzO+E+Oxqnezbf97xk5FNwpw63uVGFcK1hWMyPuiGsY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzkEabWOUiopRgq7qplYdFMfSYx3aCK6CRxNzCQ/byRmSPDSJHes+5zErcYmYEbWxxxQssAanq5Rq48xavoCnA=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:bf85:: with SMTP id p127mr12730288vkf.70.1595157999227; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 04:26:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAK044TfEz73MohX3hMBPSqqB9gGHvh6FtCdh8NykbLMHDsDmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e79b3005aac9a971"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/mrutP6v9YjGthsvskiJgH0UhXno>
Subject: [tcpm] comments on draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:26:42 -0000

Hi,
I've read draft-kang-tcpm-accurate-data-scheduling-by-server-00.
I think this is an interesting topic for mptcp, but I think it would be
better to clarify the following points.

1: One thing I'm not very clear is why we cannot use MP_PRIO for the use
cases described in the draft. I believe the draft should describe the cases
where existing features cannot fulfill the requirements more specifically.

2: Clients also have their own constraints. (e.g. policy or routing) So,
even though servers send a navigation request, they might not follow it. I
think this point should be clarified.

3: What's the meaning of 'r', 'E', 'B' flags in Section 4.1?

Thanks,
--
Yoshi