On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 7/28/2014 9:29 AM, David Mazieres wrote: > >> Olivier Bonaventure <[email protected]> writes: >> >> My viewpoint is that it is too early to discuss about an API before we >>> have a vague idea of the type of solution that will be >>> developed. Multipath TCP worked on an API before the full protocol was >>> specified but it is not yet supported by implementations. We will have >>> a very idea of what the API could provide once we know clearly what >>> will be in the protocol. Anyway, the API will only be useful once the >>> protocol has been implemented... >>> >> >> But given that we already have four concrete proposals on the table, is >> it still too early to talk about API? >> >> I think two components of the API are very important: A) some kind of >> session ID or channel binding, and B) some sort of out-of-band signal to >> indicate that applications will make use of the session ID. As far as I >> can tell, EKR seemed pretty happy to go with that API for use TLS. Are >> there other proposers who would object to such an API? >> > > It's too early to make that commitment, IMO. The TLS API may or may not be > compatible with a TCP-layer solution, and we'd have to explore that.
We can certainly explore this. The tcpcrypt API looked basically fine, and it seemed like it would be an OK match with my draft, but I admit I haven't actually tried to do the detail work. -Ekr > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc >
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
