I support adoption for the same reasons as below. BR, Michael Eriksson
________________________________ From: Tommy Pauly <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> To: mailing-lists.ietf.quic Subject: Call for adoption: Multipath Extension for QUIC Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:21:06 +0100 (CET) This draft is a good starting point for multipath work, and it seems to be the right time to take on this work. I support adoption. Best, Tommy On Jan 13, 2022, at 7:14 AM, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: 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/ [2] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmbdhk-quic-multipath/
