Hi Jana,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:44 PM Jana Iyengar <[email protected]> wrote: > Behcet, > > Lucas isn't talking about the status of the drafts, he's suggesting that > folks experiment with the proposals before we discuss their adoption. I > support this. > That's not how I understood Lucas mail. But I take you word for it even though not from the chairs :) > The question of which track will only apply when the wg is considering a > draft for adoption, and it can be modified after adoption too. There will > be a time for this bikeshed too, just not yet. > > Yes, that is how it should be. So we are open, standards track is a possibility. Let me also say that there is good support for mpquic, Apple, Alibaba, Tencent, all those support it, implement it and use it. 3GPP CT4 is ready to standardize it once we have an RFC. So what's not to like? Behcet > - jana > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:53 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Lucas, >> >> I think your offer is a good step forward. Thanks. >> >> But I am unable to understand why you want to restrict the intended >> status to Experimental? >> >> BTW I checked all 3 multipath drafts and all of them ask for standards >> track status. >> >> What is wrong with multipath that warrants downgrading its status? >> >> Behcet >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:30 PM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hey Spencer, >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:00 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Lucas, >>>> >>>> I agree - sorry if I was unclear. My suspicion, to be confirmed or >>>> overturned, is that "several multipath use cases" may not mean "all of the >>>> proposed multipath use cases". >>>> >>>> Using my two categories above, I'll be looking especially closely to >>>> see if a single multipath QUIC design can address use cases in both >>>> categories. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the clarification. As an individual, I think you and I are in >>> general agreement, turning "unknown unknowns" into "known tradeoffs and >>> demarkations " seems a nice next step to keep the conversation moving. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Lucas >>> >>
