Hi Matthieu,

Thanks for reaching out. Please see in-line

On 03/21/2018 06:34 AM, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
Hello Rao,

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com> wrote:

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.