I think that we can make progress as long as the format of the meeting
isn't:
"Here's TLS-option ; Here's tcpcrypt ; Which should we use?"
Even though it's been a long stalemate, tcpcrypt itself did benefit from
the WG
and some progress has been made. For example, at IETF 91 we (the WG)
decided
not to MAC the header. At IETF 92 we decided to use TLV. Both resulted in
new
tcpcrypt drafts and code. I hope that at this IETF we can continue this
design
effort, though in a more concentrated way.
It's clear that by November the WG needs to produce a substantial result
and not
just keep debating. I suggest that we use this meeting to define this
result.
Specifically, we should:
1) Define what we want from TLS-option (e.g., a profile?, code?, etc.).
2) Define what we want from tcpcrypt (e.g., some handshake feature?).
3) Discuss a generic "start encryption" TCP option that can select any
tcpinc protocol.
For both #1 and #2 we should spend time designing and discussing the
protocol (as if it were the only contender) to see WG dynamics when
asked to
work on a specific protocol.
The protocols can then be developed in the coming months and in November we
can
check to see if one result is superior. If none is, the generic "start
encryption" option might be the best way forward, leaving it to natural
selection to decide which particular encryption option becomes most popular.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> On 17/07/15 18:31, Joe Touch wrote:
> >
> > I see your point, but would include other context in comparing the two
> > approaches - e.g., based on well-established mechanisms vs. not, not
> > implemented but relatively clean interaction with TCP vs. not, which
> > puts them on a much more equal footing (which is part of why the WG has
> > not converged).
>
> Yep, that's fair, I wasn't trying to include all context and the above
> points are clearly why deciding has been hard. My point though against
> option 1 is that deciding won't get easier in 4 months.
>
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
>
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
