Thanks for reaching out. Please see in-line
On 03/21/2018 06:34 AM, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib(a)oracle.com
FYI. I plan to submit a proposal for a talk based on my changes.
It will be an individual presentation so as not to hurt anyone
else's reputation, just mine :-).
That's a good idea!
Note that recently, David Miller said he will not go there for unclear
reasons. We don't know if it is his final answer.
But most of the main NetDev contributors will be there!
Thanks for pointing this out. I did not know that.
To be honest, I was also thinking about submitting a proposal for
either a talk or a workshop.
I also think it would be very interesting to join forces. It is maybe
in my genes to propose that because the motto of my country is "Unity
makes Strength" but I really think that it could help to have one
single presentation about that. Note that in my country, we usually
use this motto when we need to drink all available beers but that's
something else :)
If we did not want to co-operate we would not be sharing the code and
asking for input. The reason I proposed individual submission is because
it was claimed that going to the community with my idea would make
everyone look like a fool.
I understand why you have the impression that you have. In private
emails I have raised that concern that the comments should be kept
professional and technical. If someone has a non technical issue they
are welcome to contact me privately.
BTW I am a big Warriors (Basket Ball Team) fan and their slogan is --
Strength in Numbers
I don't think I am wrong to say that we all want to upstream MPTCP
without having to rework all the current implementation. Like you, our
main concern is to adapt both TCP and MPTCP stacks to fit with NetDev
maintainer's expectations. These expectations are not always clear and
we agree that NetDevConf is a very good place to discuss about that.
Yup. The RFC
patch is intended to do exactly that. When I talked to
David and Eric about how they want MPTCP implemented, they wanted to see
an implementation as a starting point. We produced one as no one else
was working on it. However, it was summarily dismissed. The comments
make it obvious that no one looked deeper.
So we have the same goal. I just do not have the illusion that I know
what David Miller wants plus I am not afraid to ask. I also start out
small and not just jump to pie in the sky ideas. We have no expectation
that the patch will be accepted, but even it's rejection will provide
invaluable information just like my recent questions have.
From my point of view, it would be possible and even better to propose
two or more different ideas to make progress on this project of
upstreaming MPTCP. But presenting them together will certainly
indicate that we have different ideas to achieve our unique goal.
What do you think about that?
I am very happy to co-ordinate with you and work jointly with the team.
In fact I am happy to have someone else do the talk. I am also willing
to put aside the patch if genuine technical issues are raised that can
be validated independently.