On 7/19/2017 11:43 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > I don't understand your argument here, especially because you are the one who > proposed me the following (check mptcp archives, April 20, 2017) which we > endorsed in the latest version of the specification: > > "If that were the case, you'd simply be defining a new application service > and asking for a TCP port number." > > Are you saying that you suggested us a bad design choice? The text I saw talks about SYN packets.
If this is at the application layer - and doesn't hijack TCP connections to other IP addresses - then it's fine, but then the ID is very badly in need of revision. I'm working off the text I saw. Joe
