On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]> wrote:Martin,
Thanks for jumping on this. My basic principle here is that the proposals should be presented to the WG and the WG should decide, even if consensus is rough. We've largely avoided doing that here in hopes that we could get one merged proposal, but I agree is that that now seems unlikely. > Here are the two propposed ways forward: > > 1) As neither the protocol proposal I) nor II) is achieving rough > consensus, I propose to accept both as WG items and to let the WG work > on both proposals until the IETF-94 meeting in November 2015. The WG > will evaluate both proposals after this period and the chairs will > last call to see which protocol proposal will achieve rough consensus. This seems like a reasonable way to proceed and consistent with our practices (and what we have done in plenty of other contentious situations). If the chairs and AD think that November is the time for that decision I'm fine with that. One minor procedural note on this: offline we'd discussed breaking out a Transport Layer Negotiation Option which could negotiate either tcpcrypt or TLS. If we're going to accept these both as WG documents (which seems fine, though unnecessary, I suggest we break that piece out). > 2) The WG will ask the responsible AD to choose either I) or II) as WG > item. The responsible AD will pick and the WG will accept the choice. I'm not in favor of this, even as a fallback. We already have an alternative consensus process defined in RFC 3929, which, while highly imperfect, still has several options with more legitimacy than AD selection. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
