Hi Joe, The text can always be worked out. This is not an IETF LC :)
The main point is that we are following your suggestion to define the solution as an application proxy using a dedicated port number. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mercredi 19 juillet 2017 21:46 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Olivier Bonaventure; Internet Area; tsv- > [email protected] > Objet : Re: [Int-area] Middleboxes to aid the deployment of MPTCP > > > > On 7/19/2017 11:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > I don't understand your argument here, especially because you are the > one who proposed me the following (check mptcp archives, April 20, 2017) > which we endorsed in the latest version of the specification: > > > > "If that were the case, you'd simply be defining a new application > service and asking for a TCP port number." > > > > Are you saying that you suggested us a bad design choice? > The text I saw talks about SYN packets. > > If this is at the application layer - and doesn't hijack TCP connections > to other IP addresses - then it's fine, but then the ID is very badly in > need of revision. I'm working off the text I saw. > > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
