From nobody Mon Feb 5 05:43:42 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9974D12D7EB for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.931 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oeFK0IDVXqY0 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from EVMED01-UKBR.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE92912D77E for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) by EVMED01-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:43:32 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:43:36 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1293.004; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:43:36 +0000 From: To: , Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] mptcp - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 101 Thread-Index: AQHTk1+0BL3YSRpvvUuiybLrIwNUP6OK56EQgAAPFACACvD/4A== Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:43:35 +0000 Message-ID: <64d3757b2df54110bfde7280bb5331bd@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <151661171646.8179.10183602202486560659.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.202.242] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] mptcp - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:43:41 -0000 T2xpdmllciwNClRoYW5rcyBmb3Igb3JnYW5pc2luZyB0aGUgTG91dmFpbiBoYWNrYXRob24gLSBz b3VuZHMgbGlrZSBhIHZlcnkgaW50ZXJlc3Rpbmcgc2Vzc2lvbg0KDQpCZXN0IHdpc2hlcw0KcGhp bA0KDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBPbGl2aWVyIEJvbmF2ZW50 dXJlIFttYWlsdG86T2xpdmllci5Cb25hdmVudHVyZUB1Y2xvdXZhaW4uYmVdIA0KU2VudDogMjkg SmFudWFyeSAyMDE4IDE0OjM4DQpUbzogRWFyZGxleSxQTCxQaGlsaXAsVFVEMSBSIDxwaGlsaXAu ZWFyZGxleUBidC5jb20+OyBtdWx0aXBhdGh0Y3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbbXVs dGlwYXRodGNwXSBtcHRjcCAtIE5ldyBNZWV0aW5nIFNlc3Npb24gUmVxdWVzdCBmb3IgSUVURiAx MDENCg0KUGhpbCwNCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIHVzIHJlcXVlc3RzIGZvciBkaXNjdXNzaW9u IC9wcmVzZW50YXRpb24gc2xvdHMgZm9yIHRoZSBMb25kb24gSUVURi4NCj4gDQo+IFRoZXJlJ3Mg dGhlIHVzdWFsIGhhY2thdGhvbiBqdXN0IGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgSUVURiwgZGV0YWlscyBiZWxvdyAt IGlzIGFueW9uZSBpbnRlcmVzdGVkIGluIGhhY2tpbmcgdGhpcyB0aW1lPw0KDQpJIGRvbid0IGtu b3cgeWV0IHdoZXRoZXIgd2UnbGwgYmUgYWJsZSB0byBhdHRlbmQuIEZvciBJRVRGZXJzIGludGVy ZXN0ZWQgaW4gaGFja2luZyBhcm91bmQgTXVsdGlwYXRoIFRDUCwgd2UnbGwgb3JnYW5pc2UgaW4g TG91dmFpbi1sYS1OZXV2ZSBCZWxnaXVtIGEgSGFja2F0aG9uIG9uIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDIzLCAyNCBh bmQgMjUuIFRoZSBvYmplY3RpdmUgb2YgdGhpcyBoYWNrYXRob24gd2lsbCBiZSB0byBlbmFibGUg ZGV2ZWxvcHBlcnMgb2YgaU9TIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyB0byBtZWV0IHRoZSBNdWx0aXBhdGggVENQ IGRldmVsb3BwZXJzIGFuZCBhZGQgbXVsdGlwYXRoIGNhcGFiaWxpdGllcyB0byBleGlzdGluZyBp T1MgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zLg0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCg0KT2xpdmllcg0KDQoNCg== From nashnina0@gmail.com Tue Feb 6 00:32:17 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A78126BF6 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:32:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fvc6uKc0iLvH for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98B74120727 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 15so1281696qkl.3 for ; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:32:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3rN8+vfr/b0E5xEAx5E9YyG87N11f6VCnx02hvsQ3yc=; b=VtcZ/o+05R2XiXeoufE/tR1VdLmSGV3HIABvRKTKQNLvfb2+m466h0GENKIwfWZQw7 S4ChUC39duhCVQyLSAIy+pD0GFTis03cg1T+7Z3fkToxJCQS4Njsg78BSpMY8hbaBilf vrGcNR6pLPnKb8/W43TZvrDEKEdd2Gg8oH82vPb1X/oKEt53lhRAvlrLp0XDA102ruc3 q8uS2VZzHOZr8FeUUsp6IUxVd9fprGcJneV8z+LnmA+PzwCXt29n8fOLapThj0a+y10f 4afHiidAs+3I6gTMPDbKjkLdThoJl1xHW1IJwJhAA4DufYEKd49t5uAb3C/d0QFblTLG uD+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3rN8+vfr/b0E5xEAx5E9YyG87N11f6VCnx02hvsQ3yc=; b=WWJb2vxD0Z2bLb0gEvkNR51kPC5IVAplbJuBmDrvyJvXEuy8Mu9bLK1ypT8vbS2QQN mfqSf1XyfVpxTYdq8ZPBppQVt24wLP6Jw+xDQ4KTAw9va7Z3faYzBFqE6pJz2N98Aslb zf5Wi7iisE/xd5hiijAlEJlYb14+R5FJDigxHHaMPX/qnahP9gg+MFCXBrIfoMwCuvC7 eA7XgskL1WfuerCG1WgesF/IDwzhahyxU7PmtcNdsd6DSGCytaAq6cMK6lKHyseiIMcb so12/E9Xlitn3+iT2lK3wkBdYRhz4rpNdqWcp+gBm3l/A5bXiLKtwiXfJAVChECKRcsG PEZw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBpc2SpOsH/ClvOfjUrwCJv/DeB9aiCZ5m5er/LYl502t7HXYMg RE/siYWNp6El9rDHpFN/F33b3F9sfG+RhHXAVoESxw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227V5A6j4SrLyUWOJyjUw2CNMi14S9/ialN1WC1wQqgfjQGizjA+BhbJvDPhiZvdw8DWmXqgSCaCWhSlLKwUhpU= X-Received: by 10.55.20.232 with SMTP id 101mr2337417qku.264.1517905934775; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:32:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.20.147 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:32:14 -0800 (PST) From: Nina Nash John Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: To: mininet-discuss@lists.stanford.edu, multipathtcp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114011240b798d056487048c" Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:46:46 -0800 Subject: [multipathtcp] How to plot the graphs X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 08:36:31 -0000 --001a114011240b798d056487048c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello, I created custom topology and measured MPTCP throughput by using iperf in mininet xterm window. And plotted graphs to show. I just want to plot graphs which show RTT, jitter and goodput. I don't know how to do. I tried RTT in wireshark but it is not drawing. please, someone can help me? your help has great value. thank you in advance *Best regards* Nina --001a114011240b798d056487048c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
I created custom topology and measured MPTCP =C2= =A0throughput by=20 using iperf in mininet xterm window. And plotted graphs to show. I just=20 want to plot graphs which show RTT, jitter and goodput. I don't know ho= w to do. I tried RTT in wireshark but it is not drawing.

please, som= eone can help me?
your help has great value. thank you in advance
Best regards
Nina
--001a114011240b798d056487048c-- From nobody Tue Feb 6 23:12:37 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295A71205D3 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:12:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JT3bzycS1NKt for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC1431204DA for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com (mail-wr0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 962ED2782BC for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:12:30 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-wr0-f180.google.com with SMTP id y3so4500154wrh.3 for ; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBdCcOC5ey6r/gRZKEa+0miFmFS63GnceheVpOJeGBZ0Rn2wNer Oyt58HcatWmJBklRVexcA22ofhEXs4yEPfhDrUA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224qSNP2sS7VfuzQhbE2bPyDK22yJhy4IKyeenD/8jNmfYBqF1zGrkmzNj/MFTQ1bN8fa81pC4kVqXfmGtix7EE= X-Received: by 10.223.153.120 with SMTP id x111mr4829631wrb.249.1517987548615; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:12:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.183.69 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:12:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Yoshifumi Nishida Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:12:28 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Nina Nash John Cc: mininet-discuss@lists.stanford.edu, multipathtcp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045d58fc9bdab505649a04f0" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] How to plot the graphs X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:12:35 -0000 --f403045d58fc9bdab505649a04f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Nina, You may already have tried it, but tcptrace (http://www.tcptrace.org/) might be useful. -- Yoshi On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Nina Nash John wrote: > Hello, > I created custom topology and measured MPTCP throughput by using iperf in > mininet xterm window. And plotted graphs to show. I just want to plot > graphs which show RTT, jitter and goodput. I don't know how to do. I tried > RTT in wireshark but it is not drawing. > > please, someone can help me? > your help has great value. thank you in advance > *Best regards* > Nina > > _______________________________________________ > multipathtcp mailing list > multipathtcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp > > --f403045d58fc9bdab505649a04f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Nina,

You may already have tried it,= but tcptrace (http://www.tcptrace.org= /) might be useful.
--
Yoshi

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Nin= a Nash John <nashnina0@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I created cu= stom topology and measured MPTCP =C2=A0throughput by=20 using iperf in mininet xterm window. And plotted graphs to show. I just=20 want to plot graphs which show RTT, jitter and goodput. I don't know ho= w to do. I tried RTT in wireshark but it is not drawing.

please, som= eone can help me?
your help has great value. thank you in advance
Best regards
Nina

_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipa= thtcp


--f403045d58fc9bdab505649a04f0-- From nobody Wed Feb 14 09:40:12 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietf.org Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991C012D7E8; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:40:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org, ietf@kuehlewind.net, mptcp-chairs@ietf.org, lflynn@amsl.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151863001157.19282.15644549164926945589.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:40:11 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [multipathtcp] mptcp - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:40:12 -0000 An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Liz Flynn, on behalf of the mptcp working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Multipath TCP Area Name: Transport Area Session Requester: Liz Flynn Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 60 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: ippm tcpinc tcpm tsvarea tsvwg tls Second Priority: taps iccrg rtcweb manet Third Priority: nfvrg quic maprg People who must be present: Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley Mirja Kuehlewind Resources Requested: Special Requests: please avoid any transport area BoFs --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Feb 15 11:35:54 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5103C12D7E7; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:35:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tpzhNF0Ketxi; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr30108.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.3.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D26E412D7E4; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:35:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=NZbH5Mxp2kKxC3vGkvL3jmFCUdltvSEyJ/7OfgAUqNE=; b=p3hKKSrLlxb3F1NlwWUQvdViRt2vFWCP++dRrX1hXOeuhhEbEv9DqfQL6BR3QKO5T84DOPAes5UfXjVifQo9qsBB50PLoSJJculzUUzNDrMZKwOLkPwzPVQBoyaJUCV3a43Kun+KlcSn7/g6CaFEve/kctKNo7wsHIzCsnd2/PU= Received: from AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.173.92.15) by AM5PR0701MB2852.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.168.155.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.527.6; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:35:42 +0000 Received: from AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4034:6af8:67f7:1cea]) by AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4034:6af8:67f7:1cea%5]) with mapi id 15.20.0527.006; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:35:42 +0000 From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" To: "tcpm@ietf.org" , multipathtcp CC: "tcpm-chairs@ietf.org" , "mptcp-chairs@ietf.org" , "tcpm-ads@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Working group acceptance of draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters ? Thread-Index: AdNscVsYDoTasCa5Q7egAds/JZBj1A6GGGdg Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:35:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=michael.scharf@nokia.com; x-originating-ip: [135.245.212.154] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0701MB2852; 7:5WhEfDBgmuSKosg+1buYyHlHhgJgAEAjUvWXn48UTzC+pEyiRC7v7Xuc/6d3VDMz9Fc2uYUCcJ8HWLEN50baaUICJDfa4ploibyV8zOt+l9DHprTyC5DmkpwGvHLpOj8V7TNRt0rzYV6Bd9NtZW/lVX4eXGTwB7pm92sihB5BdGIdINhIjB/FJH3t17mexBZA984I+6py1fTHX9HTIsTJK8S8xsTIioPw7ZKIQOfKzmCRNJ0Eq5IWN0yBVj7VW/y x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5c67995b-32cd-44a7-a7c1-08d574ab4cfa x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(2017052603307)(7193020); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2852; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM5PR0701MB2852: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(100405760836317); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040501)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231101)(11241501184)(806099)(944501161)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041288)(20161123560045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2852; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2852; x-forefront-prvs: 058441C12A x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(39380400002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(199004)(189003)(53754006)(13464003)(6436002)(6306002)(55016002)(9686003)(186003)(5250100002)(53936002)(6246003)(2501003)(99286004)(105586002)(561944003)(59450400001)(76176011)(316002)(450100002)(68736007)(966005)(102836004)(110136005)(26005)(53546011)(33656002)(229853002)(6506007)(3846002)(8936002)(2900100001)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(2906002)(3280700002)(6116002)(478600001)(7696005)(2950100002)(4326008)(54906003)(86362001)(14454004)(97736004)(7736002)(66066001)(74316002)(3660700001)(5660300001)(25786009)(305945005)(106356001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2852; H:AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: giAG0V5z4YUYfkzWW2dPIc6YVUrnMJ5Lmp44v19tGiVJsTK+QDRSCMgaiN9iNiNcoo0x5NQam+tNG0kZYIs+DzWYCJDWbrGEuLRJcaRsoxccIFTI03U/v9jiP1nIE5cP spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5c67995b-32cd-44a7-a7c1-08d574ab4cfa X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Feb 2018 19:35:42.1557 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0701MB2852 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Working group acceptance of draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters ? X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:35:47 -0000 Hi all, The chairs of the TCPM and MPTCP working groups as well as the AD have disc= ussed how to move forward. Our understanding is: 1/ The consensus is that there is value on working on this document in the = IETF, albeit it is noted that the consensus is rough. 2/ This is experimental work.=20 3/ A mechanism like draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters requires careful rev= iew from the IETF transport area community to avoid interactions with exist= ing (or upcoming) TCP extensions and/or to comprehensively document problem= s or limitations, as well as mitigations. This is one of the benefits of an= IETF document. 4/ The mechanism suggested in draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters seems gene= ric albeit the key use case is currently MPTCP; it therefore makes sense to= specify a mechanism that can also be leveraged by other TCP extensions if = needed 5/ While there is no perfect answer where to home this document, a generic = mechanism can easier be discussed in TCPM. Therefore the decision is to wor= k on the document in TCPM. Of course, the TCPM and the Multipath TCP workin= g group will stay in close sync. A WGLC can be launched in both working gro= ups. 6/ Given the questions on the list, the TCPM chairs and AD have discussed w= hether the document is within the scope of the TCPM charter, or whether re-= chartering would be required. In our understanding, the document is a about= mechanism that is useful to "maintain TCP's utility", which is in scope of= the existing TCPM charter. It would be possible to add some words to the T= CPM charter specifically for this document and perform a formal recharterin= g. But as the document will anyway have to pass WGLC, IETF last call, and I= ESG review, rechartering TCPM for a single (experimental) document would ma= ke little formal difference. The AD and the chairs believe that recharterin= g TCPM is not needed for this specific document. Regarding the next steps: 7/ The chairs will ask to add a new milestone "Dec 2018 Submit document= on TCP converters to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC" to t= he TCPM charter. 8/ The chairs ask the authors to present the document in the upcoming TCPM = meeting, to enable TCPM (and MPTCP) contributors to raise technical concern= s and to discuss them. The TCPM chairs will allocate meeting time for that.= TCPM has asked for a 2.5h slot and we assume that there is sufficient time= for discussing this topic. 9/ Future revisions of the document shall not be specific to MPTCP only; of= course the application of a generic mechanism to MPTCP can (and should) be= described in the document. 10/ The document should be resubmitted as draft-ietf-tcpm-*. We would like to thank for all the feedback, and we hope that this proposal= works for the TCPM and MPTCP working groups. Michael (TCPM co-chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael > (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 9:05 PM > To: tcpm@ietf.org > Cc: mptcp@ietf.org > Subject: [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-bonaventure-mptcp- > converters ? >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > The chairs would like to understand if there is interest in draft-bonaven= ture- > mptcp-converters within the TCPM working group. >=20 > In principle, draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters could be applicable to > several TCP options, not only MPTCP. The assumption is that a document > published by TCPM would be generic and apply not only to MPTCP. It is > understood that a MPTCP-specific document could be handled in the MPTCP > working group instead (which is CCed). >=20 > The TCPM charter states that the "WG mostly focuses on maintenance issues > (e.g., bug fixes) and modest changes to the protocol, algorithms, and > interfaces that maintain TCP's utility". Assisting the deployment of new = TCP > extensions could be understood as one way to ensure TCP's utility. >=20 > The chairs therefore ask for community feedback on whether to add a new > milestone to the TCPM charter . >=20 > =A0=A0 Dec 2018 Submit document on TCP converters to the IESG for pub= lication > as an Experimental RFC >=20 > . and adopt draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters as a starting point. >=20 > Please reply to this e-mail within the next three weeks if you are intere= sted > in working on this document in the TCPM working group (e.g., by > contributing, reviewing) and if you support its acceptance in the TCPM > working group. >=20 > Please also speak up if you have any concerns regarding accepting this > document in TCPM. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Michael > (on behalf of the TCPM chairs) >=20 > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm From nobody Fri Feb 16 17:04:45 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8A612895E for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:04:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1fLkOt8DYgo for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:04:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EF871200C1 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:04:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com (mail-wr0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8109C29C001 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:04:38 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-wr0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w77so4514443wrc.6 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:04:38 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCCb7eztI35L256+5UoTORTPPIMiI8WVVX6bZNb92ijJKjcz5fS uCAQ8PgrtfUxzoqzsyKT6DoUrYu/oX95b7PsjM8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2247GomgkdnLUyS9jOwSGE2VWWU0Xf6X80UVNnmbuhbAyIlSdAxi7KSKWhf32rIytksMWU/BLZzhxVL11KenbZM= X-Received: by 10.223.139.217 with SMTP id w25mr3764986wra.258.1518829476517; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:04:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.183.69 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:04:35 -0800 (PST) From: Yoshifumi Nishida Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:04:35 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: multipathtcp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045eae1e6c205905655e0bc3" Archived-At: Subject: [multipathtcp] Agenda for London meeting X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 01:04:44 -0000 --f403045eae1e6c205905655e0bc3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello, According to the current preliminary agenda ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/agenda.html ), We will have a 2-hour meeting slot on 3/22 Thursday afternoon (13:30 -15:30). (Please note this might be changed as it's still preliminary) If you're planning to present something, please provide us the following info. 1: presenter's name 2: title 3: length of the presentation Thanks, -- Yoshi & Phil --f403045eae1e6c205905655e0bc3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
According to the current preliminary=C2=A0agenda=C2=A0( = https://da= tatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/agenda.html=C2=A0),
W= e will have a 2-hour meeting slot on 3/22 Thursday afternoon (13:30 -15:30)= .=C2=A0
(Please note this= might be changed as it's still preliminary)

If yo= u're planning to present something, please provide us the following inf= o.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A01: presenter's name
=C2=A0 =C2=A02: ti= tle
=C2=A0 =C2=A03: length of the presentation

Thanks,--<= /span>
Yoshi & Phil
--f403045eae1e6c205905655e0bc3-- From nobody Sun Feb 18 14:07:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABAD126C83 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.309 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRFKsOfUW7_Y for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-in4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.151.62.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37792120227 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1518991656; x=2382905256; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=nQcxAeRPqBkgEnxGc4wG9MsRkud0odAe08nrXrv73eI=; b=0J6JEXXNUGivZPHJFVi3FD/GOmULvxbWQXqg5/43+KFS5KQoG3yLN5obVSxpwDnz UQu2FlAvWfd5vAfOkoQ0KNatyPb2T8c52flmTejMs4YUggdphVq8BS2KDwQ2mZbD 5zUPrbzAt+VrnBI260osam/6tHG7ZfnVTqOU4ophhDvGstLUvlDHuw+7dlhXh8OS xnS5smuyu43GU3j/I5N5Q8jx6IOJ32jqidGokS0/F67pIClCG9RyfmvCB1ZMJxl9 xfBp9u/LNQKIqFztgaxgrySzYZjezdo14zyVGHEPz2LrPXEQpKlzBqcMR7IVh7Zx x40d4EOg+GUwORzUoLobfw==; Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com [17.128.113.67]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in4.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 90.A9.07147.829F98A5; Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:36 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11973e12-d46b29e000001beb-10-5a89f928c0e8 Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz09.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz09.apple.com [17.128.115.80]) by relay2.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 1C.FE.26650.729F98A5; Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_fcvWmxj+EO507MJVnCwwYw)" Received: from [17.149.208.112] by nwk-mmpp-sz09.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P4D006UI9GNMH00@nwk-mmpp-sz09.apple.com>; Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:35 -0800 (PST) Sender: cpaasch@apple.com From: Christoph Paasch Message-id: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:34 -0800 In-reply-to: Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG To: Philip Eardley References: <8efe9632021940bbac21fc1d12fa4539@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <162e9b4c97b44700affb0b1096cdea7e@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <20180130064527.GC689@MacBook-Pro.local> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.9) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDorKvxszPKYF8Pm8Xn1dfZLJatXcHo wOTR9mUyk8eSJT+ZApiiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLOdPQxF+zOqZjVI9/AODmmi5GTQ0LARGLn lNfMILaQwGomiccf9GDic5ddZeli5AKKH2SUOH/kPxNIgldAUOLH5HssIDazQJjEpkPPmSCK vjFKvJh2iRUkISwgKdF95w7YVDYBLYm3t9tZIZptJNZsv8sIUWMg0dbaCTaURUBV4vvLDrAa ToFwibY3rUC9HEALjCWmzDQCCYsAjelZchFq1yMmiTsnN7BAXKoocXbpRHaQhITAHDaJOTvW Mk1gFJqF5NhZSI6FsLUkvj9qBYqD7JCXOHheFiKsKfHs3id2CFtb4sm7C6wLGNlWMQrlJmbm 6GbmmeglFhTkpOol5+duYgRFwnQ7oR2Mp1ZZHWIU4GBU4uEV2NgZJcSaWFZcmXuIUZqDRUmc d/1HoJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQZGDplpV2ve3pFVvr34Raq5RaOF7KHA36bm Zx8Yfjx29YWF0s7thoKz9TKeLw6U4Gedx+P8W5zrx/ojpjMec6RPOxbaail8iUvrQ5uvfVTI HOecWf3tXU3KbBmrNZ48bq323XQt+NR+H8tinkal0xnGH+a8je8SeBP0zqi7fM0U8+9Kda81 OPmUWIozEg21mIuKEwEj+Kp5ZQIAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAcoKvxszPKYOkXJovPq6+zWSxbu4LR gcmj7ctkJo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGWc6ehjLtidUzGrR76BcXJMFyMnh4SAicTc ZVdZuhi5OIQEDjJKnD/ynwkkwSsgKPFj8j0WEJtZIExi06HnTBBF3xglXky7xAqSEBaQlOi+ c4cZxGYT0JJ4e7udFaLZRmLN9ruMEDUGEm2tnWBDWQRUJb6/7ACr4RQIl2h70wrUywG0wFhi ykwjkLAI0JieJRehdj1ikrhzcgMLxKWKEmeXTmSfwMg/C8l9s5DcB2FrSXx/1AoUBxkrL3Hw vCxEWFPi2b1P7BC2tsSTdxdYFzCyrWIUKErNSaw00kssKMhJ1UvOz93ECA7dQucdjMeWWR1i FOBgVOLhFdjYGSXEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhPe+O1CINyWxsiq1KD++qDQntfgQozQHi5I475Pg lighgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDo5U6U8Rpt28dSWd2p5j+Ni75vt/N/eW6rQrHqlp2XxSb mFbhsIdr/efJVw+kZ3h9vXBswjaR1XfXK/iuso+yv5B+IVN5/pZE+1fO35mXWdf2ex9eWZ+d HyK3rsiDvWu/zcptv9/1PdlT5vrZSzLpSEJTy8sPf3z+/1eo3Tr/Ts9ST/34jUee3FViKc5I NNRiLipOBAD6uu3WWQIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 22:07:38 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_fcvWmxj+EO507MJVnCwwYw) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hello Phil & all, to simplify collaboration, we are now hosting the draft on github at https://github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis . People can submit pull-requests and issue-reports there. We added the text for TFO and Olivier's MP_FASTCLOSE proposal, and will release a new version of the draft soon, before the deadline for IETF 101. Cheers, Christoph > On Jan 30, 2018, at 12:54 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote: > > Yes, please can you provide text as soon as possible. It was agreed to add text back in July..... > > -----Original Message----- > From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com] > Sent: 30 January 2018 06:45 > To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R > Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis > > On 29/01/18 - 13:42:48, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote: >> Hi, >> Is there any news or plans about the list of items to finalise the bis? > > Currently, there isn't yet an implementation of SHA-256. I will see what I can do (if someone wants to give it a shot, that would be great! Code is at https://multipath-tcp.org :-)). > >> Also, the bis needs re-activating, as the draft is about to expire > > We posted an update of draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-02 a few months back. Could we integrate this in the bis before we finalize it? I can provide the text for it. > > > Christoph > >> >> Thanks >> phil >> >> >> From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> philip.eardley@bt.com >> Sent: 23 October 2017 09:52 >> To: multipathtcp@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis >> >> Hi, >> << Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the >> only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?>> I was wondering if there was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect. >> Thanks >> phil >> From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R >> Sent: 26 July 2017 15:46 >> To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R >> > >> Subject: Finishing RFC6824bis >> >> We are close to finalising the bis and being able to WG Last call and send it to the IESG. Here's a list of actions. If we've forgotten anything, or anyone has another mod /addition to the bis, please say. >> >> 1. Make the changes agreed - see email below. >> >> 2. Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this? >> >> 3. Chairs /all - list of changes between RFC & bis, along with a short justification >> >> 4. Chairs /all - a short justification for obsoleting RFC6824 >> >> 5. Chairs /all - List of implementations of the protocol & bis (ie a check of which parts are implemented once or also in iOS) >> Our proposed plan is that once the various parts of #1 are done, we'll do a WGLC. Items 3, 4 & 5 are things that will be useful to the IESG. Item 2 is certainly something that would be nice to have - if there'll be a significant delay implementing it, then we should discuss whether to wait, or whether it's acceptable to progress without an implementation of this part. >> Finally a reminder that the plan is that RFC6824bis advances on the >> Standards track >> >> >> From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R >> Sent: 26 July 2017 08:51 >> To: multipathtcp > >> Subject: Changes to RFC6824bis >> >> Hi, >> During the discussions in Prague, we had good agreement about the >> following change to the bis. This is a change to the wire protocol. >> Please say as soon as possible if you disagree with this change, >> otherwise we'll go ahead and make this change:- >> >> Remove address identifier from MP-PRIO, as it can be used as an attack. >> >> Explanation at >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WWWaQ3AKWEMgsBSPKc_ >> R9Ct_YoI and follow up emails. The issue was briefly summarised during >> the Friday meeting in Prague - eg see the etherpad for a summary >> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-mptcp?useMonospace >> Font=true >> >> Alan - are you ok to make this change please? >> >> -- >> >> In addition, we agreed in principle to the following (informational) changes to the bis - exact text to be proposed. >> >> 2. Guidance about MPTCP & TFP interactions, based on https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.pdf - Christoph & Olivier, please propose text. >> >> 3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal. >> Best wishes, >> Phil & Yoshi >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> multipathtcp mailing list >> multipathtcp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp > --Boundary_(ID_fcvWmxj+EO507MJVnCwwYw) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hello= Phil & all,

to = simplify collaboration, we are now hosting the draft on github = at https://github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis.
People can submit pull-requests and = issue-reports there.

We added the text for TFO and Olivier's MP_FASTCLOSE = proposal, and will release a new version of the draft soon, before the = deadline for IETF 101.


Cheers,
Christoph


On Jan = 30, 2018, at 12:54 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:

Yes, = please can you provide text as soon as possible. It was agreed to add = text back in July.....

-----Original = Message-----
From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
Sent: 30 January = 2018 06:45
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: = [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

On = 29/01/18 - 13:42:48, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
Hi,
Is there any news or plans = about the list of items to finalise the bis?

Currently, there isn't yet an = implementation of SHA-256. I will see what I can do (if someone wants to = give it a shot, that would be great! Code is at https://multipath-tcp.org :-)).

Also, the bis needs = re-activating, as the draft is about to expire

We posted an update of = draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-02 a few months back. Could we integrate this in = the bis before we finalize it? I can provide the text for it.


Christoph


Thanks
phil


From: = multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
philip.eardley@bt.com
Sent: 23 October 2017 = 09:52
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: = [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

Hi,
<< Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand = it, this is the
only part of the bis for which we don't = have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for = implementing this?>> I was wondering if there was an update or = plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go ahead with = last call without an implementation for this aspect.
Thanks
phil
From: = Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
Sent: 26 July 2017 15:46
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
<philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>&g= t;
Subject: Finishing RFC6824bis

We are close to finalising the bis and being able to WG Last = call and send it to the IESG. Here's a list of actions. If we've = forgotten anything, or anyone has another mod /addition to the bis, = please say.

1. =      Make the changes agreed - see email = below.

2. =      Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I = understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have = at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing = this?

3. =      Chairs /all - list of changes between RFC = & bis, along with a short justification

4.      Chairs /all - a short = justification for obsoleting RFC6824

5. =      Chairs /all - List of implementations of = the protocol & bis (ie a check of which parts are implemented once = or also in iOS)
Our proposed plan is that once the various = parts of #1 are done, we'll do a WGLC. Items 3, 4 & 5 are things = that will be useful to the IESG. Item 2 is certainly something that = would be nice to have - if there'll be a significant delay implementing = it, then we should discuss whether to wait, or whether it's acceptable = to progress without an implementation of this part.
Finally = a reminder that the plan is that RFC6824bis advances on the
Standards track


From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
Sent: 26 July = 2017 08:51
To: multipathtcp = <multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>>
Subject: Changes to RFC6824bis

Hi,
During the discussions in Prague, we had = good agreement about the
following change to the bis. = This is a change to the wire protocol.
Please say as soon = as possible if you disagree with this change,
otherwise = we'll go ahead and make this change:-

Remove = address identifier from MP-PRIO, as it can be used as an attack.

Explanation at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WWWaQ3AKWEMg= sBSPKc_
R9Ct_YoI and follow up emails. The issue was = briefly summarised during
the Friday meeting in Prague - = eg see the etherpad for a summary
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-mptcp?useMo= nospace
Font=3Dtrue

Alan - = are you ok to make this change please?

--

In addition, we agreed in principle to the = following (informational) changes to the bis - exact text to be = proposed.

2. Guidance about MPTCP & TFP = interactions, based on = https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo= -00.pdf - Christoph & Olivier, please propose text.

3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to = discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would = be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please = make a proposal.
Best wishes,
Phil & = Yoshi


_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp


= --Boundary_(ID_fcvWmxj+EO507MJVnCwwYw)-- From nobody Thu Feb 22 00:22:00 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB58D1270A7 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:21:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9reMB2rBPnYq for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:21:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123661242EA for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:21:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) by EVMED05-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:21:49 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:21:50 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1293.004; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:21:50 +0000 From: To: CC: Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis Thread-Index: AdMF5BJq4+8S67w/R2Sl1/JdvcshdxF97+gQAAAW6CATSqV0QAAjyX+AAAR4e8AD10VZAACsMyZw Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:21:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8efe9632021940bbac21fc1d12fa4539@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <162e9b4c97b44700affb0b1096cdea7e@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <20180130064527.GC689@MacBook-Pro.local> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.202.242] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f6a44c3af4974dd9992e1a68125ddb1brew09926dag03bdomain1sy_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:21:58 -0000 --_000_f6a44c3af4974dd9992e1a68125ddb1brew09926dag03bdomain1sy_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Christoph, Thanks for working on it. Re MP-FASTCLOSE - this is based on the thread at https://mailarchive.ietf.o= rg/arch/msg/multipathtcp/fI2cgcRxttl20HyRs_QkDgXT9cM This didn't reach a d= efinitive conclusion in favour, but there were no objections. If anyone obj= ects, please shout (I suggest the default is to add this text) Re TFO - this is about the interactions of TFO & MPTCP as described at http= s://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.p= df and in the related draft. This was agreed earlier (26 July 2017 email) i= n principle, people should check the exact text. Referring back to this earlier email (26 july) >>3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the = list whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the = context of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal. Suggest we drop this, unless there's proposed text in this next version (be= fore ietf) Also, << Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the = only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. I= s there any timescale for implementing this? I was wondering if there was = an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go a= head with last call without an implementation for this aspect.>> I'm assuming you haven't had time to implement this Best wishes, phil From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com] Sent: 18 February 2018 22:08 To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis Hello Phil & all, to simplify collaboration, we are now hosting the draft on github at https:= //github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis. People can submit pull-requests and issue-reports there. We added the text for TFO and Olivier's MP_FASTCLOSE proposal, and will rel= ease a new version of the draft soon, before the deadline for IETF 101. Cheers, Christoph On Jan 30, 2018, at 12:54 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote: Yes, please can you provide text as soon as possible. It was agreed to add = text back in July..... -----Original Message----- From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com= ] Sent: 30 January 2018 06:45 To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R > Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis On 29/01/18 - 13:42:48, philip.eardley@bt.com= wrote: Hi, Is there any news or plans about the list of items to finalise the bis? Currently, there isn't yet an implementation of SHA-256. I will see what I = can do (if someone wants to give it a shot, that would be great! Code is at= https://multipath-tcp.org :-)). Also, the bis needs re-activating, as the draft is about to expire We posted an update of draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-02 a few months back. Could we= integrate this in the bis before we finalize it? I can provide the text fo= r it. Christoph Thanks phil From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of philip.eardley@bt.com Sent: 23 October 2017 09:52 To: multipathtcp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis Hi, << Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. I= s there any timescale for implementing this?>> I was wondering if there was= an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok to go = ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect. Thanks phil From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R Sent: 26 July 2017 15:46 To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R >> Subject: Finishing RFC6824bis We are close to finalising the bis and being able to WG Last call and send = it to the IESG. Here's a list of actions. If we've forgotten anything, or a= nyone has another mod /addition to the bis, please say. 1. Make the changes agreed - see email below. 2. Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the o= nly part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. Is= there any timescale for implementing this? 3. Chairs /all - list of changes between RFC & bis, along with a short= justification 4. Chairs /all - a short justification for obsoleting RFC6824 5. Chairs /all - List of implementations of the protocol & bis (ie a c= heck of which parts are implemented once or also in iOS) Our proposed plan is that once the various parts of #1 are done, we'll do a= WGLC. Items 3, 4 & 5 are things that will be useful to the IESG. Item 2 is= certainly something that would be nice to have - if there'll be a signific= ant delay implementing it, then we should discuss whether to wait, or wheth= er it's acceptable to progress without an implementation of this part. Finally a reminder that the plan is that RFC6824bis advances on the Standards track From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R Sent: 26 July 2017 08:51 To: multipathtcp >> Subject: Changes to RFC6824bis Hi, During the discussions in Prague, we had good agreement about the following change to the bis. This is a change to the wire protocol. Please say as soon as possible if you disagree with this change, otherwise we'll go ahead and make this change:- Remove address identifier from MP-PRIO, as it can be used as an attack. Explanation at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WWWaQ3AKWEMgsBSPKc_ R9Ct_YoI and follow up emails. The issue was briefly summarised during the Friday meeting in Prague - eg see the etherpad for a summary http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-mptcp?useMonospace Font=3Dtrue Alan - are you ok to make this change please? -- In addition, we agreed in principle to the following (informational) change= s to the bis - exact text to be proposed. 2. Guidance about MPTCP & TFP interactions, based on https://www.ietf.org/p= roceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-00.pdf - Christoph & O= livier, please propose text. 3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the li= st whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the co= ntext of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal. Best wishes, Phil & Yoshi _______________________________________________ multipathtcp mailing list multipathtcp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp --_000_f6a44c3af4974dd9992e1a68125ddb1brew09926dag03bdomain1sy_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Christoph,

Thanks for working on it= .

Re MP-FASTCLOSE – = this is based on the thread at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/fI2cgcRxttl20HyRs_QkDgXT= 9cM  This didn’t reach a definitive conclusion in favour, bu= t there were no objections. If anyone objects, please shout (I suggest the = default is to add this text)

Re TFO – this is about the intera= ctions of TFO & MPTCP as described at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-= 00.pdf and in the related draft. This was agreed earlier (26 July 2017 = email) in principle, people should check the exact text.<= /p>

Referring back to this earlier email (2= 6 july)

>&g= t;3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon= , to discuss on the list whether clarifications or extra ‘reason code= s’ would be useful in the context of reset option. Quentin (& oth= ers), please make a proposal.

Sugges= t we drop this, unless there’s proposed text in this next version (be= fore ietf)

Also, << Implementers – implement SHA-256. A= s I understand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don’= t have at least one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing= this?  I was wondering if there was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it’s ok to go ahea= d with last call without an implementation for this aspect.>>

I’m assuming you haven’t had time to implement this

Best wishes,

phil

 = ;

From: = cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
Sent: 18 February 2018 22:08
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com>
Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

 

Hello Phil & all,

 

to simplify collaboration, we are now hosting the dr= aft on github at https://github.com/multipath-tcp/draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc68= 24bis.

People can submit pull-requests and issue-reports th= ere.

 

We added the text for TFO and Olivier's MP_FASTCLOSE= proposal, and will release a new version of the draft soon, before the dea= dline for IETF 101.

 

 

Cheers,

Christoph

 



On Jan 30, 2018, at 12:54 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:

 

Yes, please can you provide text as soon as possible= . It was agreed to add text back in July.....

-----Original Message-----
From: cpaasch@apple.com [mailto:cpaasch@apple.com]
Sent: 30 January 2018 06:45
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <p= hilip.eardley@bt.com>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

On 29/01/18 - 13:42:48, philip.ear= dley@bt.com wrote:

Hi,
Is there any news or plans about the list of items to finalise the bis?


Currently, there isn't yet an implementation of SHA-256. I will see what I = can do (if someone wants to give it a shot, that would be great! Code is at https://multipath-tcp.org :-)).

Also, the bis needs re-activating, as the draft is a= bout to expire


We posted an update of draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-02 a few months back. Could we= integrate this in the bis before we finalize it? I can provide the text fo= r it.


Christoph



Thanks
phil


From: multipathtcp [mailto= :multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
philip.eardley@bt.com
Sent: 23 October 2017 09:52
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Finishing RFC6824bis

Hi,
<< Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I understand it, this is the =
only part of the bis for which we don't have at least one implementation. I= s there any timescale for implementing this?>> I was wondering if the= re was an update or plans about this. Alternatively, we may decide it's ok = to go ahead with last call without an implementation for this aspect.
Thanks
phil
From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
Sent: 26 July 2017 15:46
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
<philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>>
Subject: Finishing RFC6824bis

We are close to finalising the bis and being able to WG Last call and send = it to the IESG. Here's a list of actions. If we've forgotten anything, or a= nyone has another mod /addition to the bis, please say.

1.      Make the changes agreed - see email below.=

2.      Implementers - implement SHA-256. As I und= erstand it, this is the only part of the bis for which we don't have at lea= st one implementation. Is there any timescale for implementing this?

3.      Chairs /all - list of changes between RFC = & bis, along with a short justification

4.      Chairs /all - a short justification for ob= soleting RFC6824

5.      Chairs /all - List of implementations of t= he protocol & bis (ie a check of which parts are implemented once or al= so in iOS)
Our proposed plan is that once the various parts of #1 are done, we'll do a= WGLC. Items 3, 4 & 5 are things that will be useful to the IESG. Item = 2 is certainly something that would be nice to have - if there'll be a sign= ificant delay implementing it, then we should discuss whether to wait, or whether it's acceptable to progress = without an implementation of this part.
Finally a reminder that the plan is that RFC6824bis advances on the
Standards track


From: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R
Sent: 26 July 2017 08:51
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org= >>
Subject: Changes to RFC6824bis

Hi,
During the discussions in Prague, we had good agreement about the
following change to the bis. This is a change to the wire protocol.
Please say as soon as possible if you disagree with this change,
otherwise we'll go ahead and make this change:-

Remove address identifier from MP-PRIO, as it can be used as an attack.

Explanation at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WWWaQ3AKWEMgsBSP= Kc_
R9Ct_YoI and follow up emails. The issue was briefly summarised during
the Friday meeting in Prague - eg see the etherpad for a summary
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-mptcp?useMonosp= ace
Font=3Dtrue

Alan - are you ok to make this change please?

--

In addition, we agreed in principle to the following (informational) change= s to the bis - exact text to be proposed.

2. Guidance about MPTCP & TFP interactions, based on https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-mptcp-sessb-mptcp-tfo-= 00.pdf - Christoph & Olivier, please propose text.

3. There was a suggestion, arising from the hackathon, to discuss on the li= st whether clarifications or extra 'reason codes' would be useful in the co= ntext of reset option. Quentin (& others), please make a proposal.
Best wishes,
Phil & Yoshi



_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@ietf.org
https://www.= ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

 

 

--_000_f6a44c3af4974dd9992e1a68125ddb1brew09926dag03bdomain1sy_-- From nobody Tue Feb 27 15:15:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietf.org Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8766512E8E3; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:11:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org, ietf@kuehlewind.net X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.73.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151977307754.5200.7501494269452928820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:11:17 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [multipathtcp] mptcp - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:11:20 -0000 Dear Philip Eardley, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. mptcp Session 1 (2:00:00) Thursday, Afternoon Session I 1330-1530 Room Name: Viscount size: 175 --------------------------------------------- Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Multipath TCP Area Name: Transport Area Session Requester: Philip Eardley Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 60 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: ippm tcpinc tcpm tsvarea tsvwg tls Second Priority: taps iccrg rtcweb manet Third Priority: nfvrg quic maprg People who must be present: Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley Mirja Kuehlewind Resources Requested: Special Requests: please avoid any transport area BoFs --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Wed Feb 28 05:52:13 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98F012D95E for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:52:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEqRt7TXJ_V2 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E7E712D7E8 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:51:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C98827822F for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 22:51:40 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id v65so2472669wrc.11 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:51:40 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPA0IIJ+IW1/6KETQUxqmTsaiZwF9tO2Fx+M/JBOh7RgeX5QQmyZ 5lBo+l5enaoCy+Xpgpe5msKeFXdt3rdi8LOqY0g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELs5nbJN+8GGMtQ0nKT51P0inasKS6NDmmjepYuaQ8fq1s6bu+HG6OEtF7pb24ZbpmEwBHZ5OBFxiQSROUROpYE= X-Received: by 10.223.171.88 with SMTP id r24mr3565084wrc.194.1519825897612; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:51:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.129.200 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:51:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Yoshifumi Nishida Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:51:36 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Yoshifumi Nishida Cc: multipathtcp , "philip.eardley" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1b69f0bf6b1e0566460abe" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Agenda for London meeting X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:52:06 -0000 --94eb2c1b69f0bf6b1e0566460abe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" We can also host remote presentations. Please let us know if you're interested. -- Yoshi & Phil On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote: > Hello, > According to the current preliminary agenda ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/agenda.html ), > We will have a 2-hour meeting slot on 3/22 Thursday afternoon (13:30 > -15:30). > (Please note this might be changed as it's still preliminary) > > If you're planning to present something, please provide us the following > info. > > 1: presenter's name > 2: title > 3: length of the presentation > > Thanks, > -- > Yoshi & Phil > --94eb2c1b69f0bf6b1e0566460abe Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We can also host remote presentations. Please let us know = if you're interested.
--
Yoshi & Phil

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:0= 4 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> wrote:=
Hello,
According= to the current preliminary=C2=A0agenda=C2=A0( https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/1= 01/agenda.html=C2=A0),
We will have a 2-hour meeting= slot on 3/22 Thursday afternoon (13:30 -15:30).=C2=A0
(Please note this might be changed as it'= s still preliminary)

If you're planning to present= something, please provide us the following info.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A01= : presenter's name
=C2=A0 =C2=A02: title
=C2=A0 =C2=A03: le= ngth of the presentation

Thanks,
--
Yoshi & Phil

--94eb2c1b69f0bf6b1e0566460abe--