On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > On 21/07/15 09:48, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I'm not concerned about the level of effort; I'm concerned about having > > multiple normative references for the same protocol. > > Right. I don't want to risk complicating the TLS1.3 effort, esp for a > draft we don't even know will be adopted. > > This set of messages reinforces the concern raised in a set of exchanges that was in the room: will a tcpinc based on TLS be able to make progress at a reasonable rate with tcpinc's concerns being only a part of a much larger effort? It's obvious that creating a profile of TLS 1.3 appropriate for tcpinc is a significant amount of work, whether we are in cite-and-explain or copy-and-keep-current mode. To re-iterate my own view: either of these approaches seems capable of meeting the needs set out in the charter. Continuing to delay the choice will leave flows unencrypted for longer and longer. The delay is also harmful, though, if it is derived from the need to harmonize instead of the need to make a tough choice. Put another way, if the AD for TLS 1.3 is not willing to complicate the TLS 1.3 effort with this work, perhaps it should be withdrawn from consideration. regards, Ted Hardie /no hats > 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
