Subject: [multipathtcp] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g-01.txt

From: Xavier de Foy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:22:33 -0400

This update to "Considerations for MPTCP operation in 5G" proposes to make
use of the session continuity type defined in ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility,
as input for decisions in the MPTCP stack.

(Adding DMM list as recipient. Your feedback would be appreciated.)

Best Regards,
Xavier.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Xavier de Foy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Subject: Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g-01.txt
To: multipathtcp <[email-masked]>

Hi,

  We have submitted a new version of "Considerations for MPTCP operation in
5G".

  Following comments at the last IETF meeting, we used the session
continuity type defined in ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility as primary input for
local decisions in MPTCP stack. Session continuity type can also be
associated with IP addresses in MPTCP signalling. More minor updates were
made to the dual connectivity related topic (work is ongoing, there may be
a more significant update later).

 Best Regards,
Xavier.

----------

A new version of I-D, draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Xavier de Foy and posted to the IETF
repository.

Name:draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g
Revision:01
Title:Considerations for MPTCP operation in 5G
Document date:2018-06-22
Group:Individual Submission
Pages:13
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-defoy-mptcp-consi
derations-for-5g-01.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-defoy-mptcp-consider
ations-for-5g/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-defoy-mptcp-consideration
s-for-5g-01
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-defoy-mptcp-con
siderations-for-5g
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-defoy-mptcp-conside
rations-for-5g-01

Abstract:
   This document describes scenarios where the behavior of the 5G
   mobility management framework is different from earlier cellular
   generations, and describes how it may benefit from some form of
   adaptation of MPTCP implementations and protocol aspects in the 5G
   system.  This document also describes how MPTCP may be leveraged in
   5G system specifications.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

[Banner]
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other
than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute
waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this
communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify
me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any
attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this
message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic
signature.

---

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 11:33:37 -0700

Hi Xavier,

Thanks for the draft. I have a question about dual connectivity.

"Therefore, in a first case, DC can be made visible to applications
through different IP addresses, while in a second case, DC can be used
by different flows terminated at the same IP address on the device."

In the second case, is there any way for upper layer to know or
specify which packets go through which radio links?
--
Yoshi

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Xavier de Foy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> use of the session continuity type defined in ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility, as
> input for decisions in the MPTCP stack.
>
> made to the dual connectivity related topic (work is ongoing, there may be a
> more significant update later).
>
>  Best Regards,
> Xavier.
>
> ----------
>
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g-01.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g-01
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-defoy-mptcp-considerations-for-5g-01
>
> Abstract:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> [Banner]
> confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than
> its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver
> of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this
> attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message
> or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
>

---

From: Xavier de Foy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:03:12 -0400

Hi Yoshi,

My guess would be through (possibly new) socket options, but maybe Kien
will have a better answer, as the main contributor on this section.

Best Regards,
Xavier

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> submission
> than
> message