Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-mptcp-experience
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-09-13
Requested 2016-08-31
Authors Olivier Bonaventure, Christoph Paasch, Gregory Detal
Draft last updated 2016-09-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mptcp-experience-06-opsdir-lc-wu-2016-09-21
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-09-21


I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
 aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.


This document investigates several use cases that are not identified in [RFC6182]and discusses operation experience with multiple path TCP.


I think this document is well written and ready for publication. Here are a few editorial comments:



Section 1, paragraph 2 mentions that three implementation are open sources. Which three of them are open sources? I think it includes apple MP-TCP, but it is not clear in the text.



Section 2.2 paragraph 7 points out using REMOVE_ADDR option may cause operational problem, but I don’t see any discussion on this in the operation experience section, is this an open issue that needs to be addressed
 in the future or other document?



Section 3.1 talks about the v0.87 Multipath TCP implementation What does V0.87 stands for? Version number? is there any reference to it?



Section 3.2

s/the the default congestion control/ the default congestion control



Section 3.2 last paragraph said that Reports from some users indicate that they seem to favor OLIA. It looks this statement is groundless statement.



Section 3.9

s/ returned to the DNS query/return in response to the DNS query



Section 3.10 said:


A better approach would probably be to try a few attempts on

the WiFi interface and then try to use the second interface for the

initial subflow as well.


When trying to use second interface for initial subflow? A few attempts on the WIFI interface fails?



Section 3.2