Well, I wrote my personal views on the proposed reply. Was expecting mpquic enthusiasts to speak up, it seems so far no one else did.
Behcet On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:25 PM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
