DCCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses
draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-17

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp@ietf.org, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, zahed.sarker.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'DCCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-17.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DCCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses'
  (draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-17.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Transport and Services Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Zaheduzzaman Sarker and Francesca Palombini.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   DCCP communications as defined in RFC 4340 are restricted to a single
   path per connection, yet multiple paths often exist between peers.
   The simultaneous use of available multiple paths for a DCCP session
   could improve resource usage within the network and, thus, improve
   user experience through higher throughput and improved resilience to
   network failures.  Use cases for Multipath DCCP (MP-DCCP) are mobile
   devices (e.g., handsets, vehicles) and residential home gateways
   simultaneously connected to distinct networks as, e.g., a cellular
   and a Wireless Local Area (WLAN) network or a cellular and a fixed
   access network.  Compared to existing multipath protocols such as
   MPTCP, MP-DCCP offers special support for latency-sensitive services
   with different requirements for reliability and in-order delivery.

   This document specifies a set of extensions to DCCP to support
   multipath operations.  The protocol offers the same type of service
   to applications as DCCP and provides the components necessary to
   establish and use multiple DCCP flows across different paths
   simultaneously.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Gorry Fairhurst. The
   Responsible Area Director is Zaheduzzaman Sarker.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note