Hi Behcet, On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 21:07 Behcet Sarikaya, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > The propose liason statement is based on our understanding of the WG following the multipath-focused interim meeting and subsequent discussion. This highlighted different use-cases for multipath and different possible technical designs. For example, we were presented with Alibaba's use case which decided not to use the design in draft-deconninck. That there is more than one possible design, and that there is active discussion about philosophical design details, is a signal that the WG is still forming consensus. And we should provide the time needed to explore these aspects further. > Also I am not sure if it is a good idea to be not so cooperative with a > very important organization like 3GPP. > Consesus is participant driven, we encourage folks to participate in the QUIC WG and continue the discussion, in line with the guidance Lars previously sent out. > So I suggest a deep rewrite of this reply. > We welcome specific suggestions from you or other WG members. Kind regards Lucas
