Support.
IMO a solution for hybrid access is needed by many operators at this point, and this does point in a direction that would provide a common technology base with QUIC adoption in general. And…The authors/editors recommendation makes sense. Cheers Dave From: QUIC <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Lucas Pardue Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 7:14 AM To: QUIC WG <[email protected]> Cc: QUIC WG Chairs <[email protected]> Subject: Call for adoption: Multipath Extension for QUIC Greeting QUIC WG members, During IETF 113 Mirja presented [1] about the unified multipath QUIC proposal in draft-lmbdhk-quic-multipath [2]. There was a strong feeling in the room that this draft was a good basis for adoption into the QUIC WG. So we'd like to start an adoption call. The adoption call will run for 2 weeks, ending on February 27 2021 (anywhere on earth). Please reply to this email with any comments. As a reminder, the draft contains two approaches to using packet numbers. The feeling in the room at IETF 113 was that it is suitable to adopt the documents in this state and select a single approach as part of the regular consensus process. Since this is a draft that unifies different proposals, the chairs are suggesting that should the WG agree to adopt draft-lmbdhk-quic-multipath, the current author group be split into three editors (Mirja, Quentin, Yanmei) and three authors (Chrisian, Olivier, Yunfei). Kinds regards, Matt & Lucas QUIC WG Chairs [1] - <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-112-quic-unified-multipath-quic-extension/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-112-quic-unified-multipath-quic-extension/ [2] - <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmbdhk-quic-multipath/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmbdhk-quic-multipath/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
