Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development
draft-ietf-mptcp-architecture-05
Yes
(David Harrington)
(Lars Eggert)
(Robert Sparks)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
David Harrington Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-01-19)
Unknown
An excellent document. Thanks for writing it. I would change the urgent data support to a MAY, however.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-01-16)
Unknown
5.6. Connection Identification Legacy applications will not, however, have access to this identifier and in such cases a MPTCP connection will be identified by the 5-tuple of the first TCP subflow. It is out of the scope of this document, however, to define the behaviour of the MPTCP implementation if the first TCP subflow later fails. If there are MPTCP-unaware applications that make assumptions about continued existence of the initial address pair, their behaviour could be disrupted by carrying on regardless. It is expected that this is a very small, possibly negligible, set of applications, however. In the case of applications that have used an existing API call to bind to a specific address or interface, the MPTCP extension MUST NOT be used, since the applications are indicating a clear choice of path to use and thus will have expectations of behaviour that must be maintained, in order to adhere to the application compatibility goals. I am not convinced your use of MUST NOT is correct here. In fact, it seems that it is in direct conflict with the following paragraph: Since the requirements of applications are not clear at this stage, however, it is as yet unconfirmed what the best behaviour is. It will be an implementation-specific solution, however, and as such the behaviour is expected to be chosen by implementors once more research has been undertaken to determine its impact. I.e., it is actually possible to know from the current socket API what is the application intent in this case?
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-01-20)
Unknown
I support David's COMMENT
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-01-20)
Unknown
This is a useful document. I believe that it would useful to the community to note much earlier, and with greater clarity, in the document that it is applicable to the ECMP case. Whilst few hosts are dual attached most networks have ECMP, and better ECMP is the subject of work in the Routing area.