Problem Statement of MPTCP Transmission Feature Negotiation
draft-nagesh-mptcp-feature-negotiation-ps-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Nagesh Shamnur , Zhen Cao | ||
| Last updated | 2020-05-07 (Latest revision 2019-11-04) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Path manager and packet scheduler are two important components of MPTCP protocol and associated implementations. Normally they are implemented and configured statically. This draft discusses the scenarios where statically configured path manager and packet scheduler are not sufficient, and presents the cases that deserve the negotiation of these multipath transmission features which are currently not addressed by MPTCP.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)