Re: [Emu] Adoption call for RFC 7170bis
On Dec 22, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > I view this differently. First, we don't have good deployment numbers for > TEAP. If we bump the version and nobody is using TEAP, then nobody will > care. If we don't bump the version and people ARE using TEAP, we'll get to > hear from everyone who cares! From a code standpoint, I imagine that the > incompabitibilies will be small in number, and so we're talking about a > handful of conditionals. We have "something" implemented today as TEAPv1. Whatever it is, it's shipped by multiple vendors on tens of millions of devices. Plus, there are multiple other vendors planning on shipping TEAP support in Q2 2023. We can rev TEAP, but we can't change existing implementations. And any new rev will be deployed in the time frame (at best) of 12-18 months. If we document 7170bis now "as implemented", that can be done in a short time frame. We then have the freedom to do whatever we want with TEAPv2. But I'm wary of not documenting TEAPv1, and I'm wary of delaying that documentation in the interest of doing a TEAPv2. I'm not even sure what we'd do for TEAPv2. There isn't much point in changing the key derivations. The current one is arguably suboptimal, but it works. I wouldn't see a need to change it for something "better" in a TEAPv2. So I'd like to know what would be in TEAPv2, and what issues there would be if we just documented TEAPv1 "as implemented". Alan DeKok. ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Adoption call for RFC 7170bis
Alan, I view this differently. First, we don't have good deployment numbers for TEAP. If we bump the version and nobody is using TEAP, then nobody will care. If we don't bump the version and people ARE using TEAP, we'll get to hear from everyone who cares! From a code standpoint, I imagine that the incompabitibilies will be small in number, and so we're talking about a handful of conditionals. Eliot On 22.12.22 15:43, Alan DeKok wrote: On Dec 22, 2022, at 9:36 AM, Oleg Pekar wrote: I would like to provide comments as well. We should also bump the version of the protocol so as not to harm the existing implementations (yes, they implemented the spec with filed errata, the spec is sometimes ambiguous but those implementations are already on the market). What we have is a situation where no one has implemented RFC 7170, and there is no practical path to implementing it. As a result, the -bis revision is documenting the implementations. i.e. "this is what's going on" versus "what should be going on". It would be more relevant to update the version when there are incompatible changes to the protocol, *and* existing implementations which need to know which version they're negotiating. Since there is only one "TEAP version 1", I would argue that there's no need to change the version. Plus, if we change the version, then people have no idea what's currently implemented. TEAP version 1 becomes an undocumented mess of unknowns. As an implementor, I'm happy to declare RFC 7170 as irrelevant, and to issue a new standard which defines TEAP version 1 "as implemented". Alan DeKok. ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Adoption call for RFC 7170bis
I would like to see this draft adopted. I need to work on implementing TEAP. For this I'd like to have a draft that I could use, and while doing the work, help by providing comments. Thanks, Heikki On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 00:29, Peter Yee wrote: > This is an adoption call for RFC 7170bis > (draft-dekok-emu-rfc7170bis-00)[1]. > I'd call this mostly a formality since it's pretty clear the WG is > interested in updating TEAP and TEAP was already adopted by the WG (back in > May 2011). With Alan having generated a new working version to host the > update and even preparing a Git repository[2] to that end, I believe we're > in a good place to revise RFC 7170. That said, if anyone has an objection > to > starting off from Alan's kind offering, please let us know by December 22, > 2022. > > Joe and Peter > > 1) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dekok-emu-rfc7170bis/ > 2) https://github.com/alandekok/rfc7170-bis.git > > > > ___ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > -- Heikki Vatiainen h...@radiatorsoftware.com ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Adoption call for RFC 7170bis
On Dec 22, 2022, at 9:36 AM, Oleg Pekar wrote: > > I would like to provide comments as well. We should also bump the version of > the protocol so as not to harm the existing implementations (yes, they > implemented the spec with filed errata, the spec is sometimes ambiguous but > those implementations are already on the market). What we have is a situation where no one has implemented RFC 7170, and there is no practical path to implementing it. As a result, the -bis revision is documenting the implementations. i.e. "this is what's going on" versus "what should be going on". It would be more relevant to update the version when there are incompatible changes to the protocol, *and* existing implementations which need to know which version they're negotiating. Since there is only one "TEAP version 1", I would argue that there's no need to change the version. Plus, if we change the version, then people have no idea what's currently implemented. TEAP version 1 becomes an undocumented mess of unknowns. As an implementor, I'm happy to declare RFC 7170 as irrelevant, and to issue a new standard which defines TEAP version 1 "as implemented". Alan DeKok. ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Re: [Emu] Adoption call for RFC 7170bis
I would like to provide comments as well. We should also bump the version of the protocol so as not to harm the existing implementations (yes, they implemented the spec with filed errata, the spec is sometimes ambiguous but those implementations are already on the market). Regards, Oleg On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:29 AM Peter Yee wrote: > This is an adoption call for RFC 7170bis > (draft-dekok-emu-rfc7170bis-00)[1]. > I'd call this mostly a formality since it's pretty clear the WG is > interested in updating TEAP and TEAP was already adopted by the WG (back in > May 2011). With Alan having generated a new working version to host the > update and even preparing a Git repository[2] to that end, I believe we're > in a good place to revise RFC 7170. That said, if anyone has an objection > to > starting off from Alan's kind offering, please let us know by December 22, > 2022. > > Joe and Peter > > 1) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dekok-emu-rfc7170bis/ > 2) https://github.com/alandekok/rfc7170-bis.git > > > > ___ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
