El 01/08/14 21:59, Eric Rescorla escribió:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:El 01/08/14 21:07, ianG escribió: On 1/08/2014 16:24 pm, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: El 01/08/14 14:17, ianG escribió: Marcelo wrote: As we discussed in the meeting, we should try to make some design decisions for TCPINC. One of them is whether to protect or not the TCP header. is clearly, not to decide. The charter should leave the level of TCP header protection open. May the best proposal win. No. We are chartered to define one and only one standard for this. We would be doing a poor service to the community if we can decide and leave someone else the burden to figure out which is the approach to use. So the tcpinc wg should define one specification for this, not many. I agree. May the best proposal win: choose the one that best serves the overall needs of competing proposals. It's already clear from the proposals that there will be differing approaches and capabilities. Set a deadline, pick one. Right, this is the plan. The deadline we are aiming for to pick a proposal is november I do think it is helpful to discuss the requirements the proposals are aiming to hit, however. That way people can adjust their proposals to meet the relevant needs.
Right, this is what we are doing at this stage. However, this process needs to be fast enough (i.e. i dont think it is a good use of our energy to spend 5 years discussing requirements and get people to tune their proposals accordingly especially since after 5 years of tunning the proposals are likely to be very similar and selection is impossible)
So, i think having a goal of selecting an approach in the next few months that we can start working and improving is a reasonable goal, makes sense?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
