Hi Lars, Sorry I did not understand this email and found it very negative.
You mention individual proposals, I saw 4 listed somewhere before. However, the one by Huitema is not a solution perse (no offense intended) it addresses one issue it is based on his view that multiple paths should have one packet numbering. I thought that deconinck draft was the main one which already has been revised so many times. Also I am not sure if it is a good idea to be not so cooperative with a very important organization like 3GPP. So I suggest a deep rewrite of this reply. My 3 cents. Behcet On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 12:02 PM Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > FYI, below is a draft of our intended response to the recent Liaison > Statement "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions" which we intend to send next > week. > > Please feel free to send comments. > > Thanks, > Lars and Lucas > > -- > > Thank you for the update on your architectural design and your intended > standardization timeline. > > Multipath support for QUIC remains under active discussion in the IETF > QUIC working group. While multiple design proposals for such an extension > have been proposed, it remains uncertain for the time being if the WG will > come to consensus on adopting a work item on multipath QUIC, and if so, > which individual proposal it would be based on and whether or not it would > satisfy your architectural design. We unfortunately also cannot predict > whether the WG discussion will have sufficiently progressed by March 2021 > for such a consensus to emerge. > > Kind regards, > Lucas Pardue and Lars Eggert, QUIC Working Group chairs >
