Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Yet another version (090921)

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:02:06 +0200

Hi Joe,

I don't have strong views on this. IETF has usually not done API's as
standard track documents, only as informational. I can make it into its
own milestone and leave status as something for the WG to discuss.

Magnus

Joe Touch skrev:
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> Looks good, though I would put API in with the protocol spec, not the
> application considerations doc.
> 
> Joe
> ---
> 
> Mar 2010 - Established WG consensus on the Architecture
> Aug 2010 - Submit to IESG Architectural Guidelines and Security Threat
> Analysis as informational RFC(s)
> Dec 2010 - Submit to IESG basic coupled congestion control as an
> experimental RFC
> Dec 2010 - Submit to IESG protocol specification for MPTCP extensions as
> an experimental RFC
> Mar 2011 - Submit to IESG application considerations and API as an
>                                                      ^^^^^^^
> informational RFC
> Mar 2011 - Recharter or close WG

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:14:05 -0400

> own milestone and leave status as something for the WG to discuss.

_+1 ... swb

---

From: "SCHARF, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:51:37 +0200

Hi all,

in related cases, the API seems to be described in a separate document
(see draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api, draft-ietf-hip-native-api,
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket, etc.), and I have the feeling putting
everything in the protocol spec would overload that document.

Alan Ford and me are currently putting together a draft that tries to
integrate the application considerations and the API stuff (an initial
version will be published soon). There are at least some aspects that
seem to be somehow related both to the applications considerations and
the API (e. g., implication of using TCP_NODELAY).

Therefore, I still think that having both aspects in one document could
be a reasonable choice, and we should not prevent this option right now.

Michael

> Hi Joe,
> 
> I don't have strong views on this. IETF has usually not done 
> API's as standard track documents, only as informational. I 
> can make it into its own milestone and leave status as 
> something for the WG to discuss.
> 
> Magnus
> 
> Joe Touch skrev:
> > Hi Magnus,
> >

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:46:44 -0700

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> standard track documents, only as informational.

That has been a change (e.g., vs. 793, which is standards-track and
includes an API), and a mistake IMO. It's nonsensical to talk about a
protocol without talking about its API.

In this case in specific, there's a direct relation to 793's API and how
it needs to be extended, so it should be similarly standards track, IMO.

> I can make it into its

Sure. That works.

Joe