Hi, I tend to go with option b) to be adopted as a WG document; Which, in my mind, does NOT imply that it's technically cemented at that point, but rather becomes a proper IETF document, with the WG having change control over it. And implementer experience DOES matter (as does time, IMHO).
I would further like to point out to like the idea that was voiced by Tim Shephard at the last IETF, that perhaps the current running code, and some of the ideas of the other draft can eventually be reconciled; But I do not like the logjam that has been evident over the last couple months. Best regards, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Tcpinc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin > Stiemerling > Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 10:29 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [tcpinc] Reminder: Ongoing Working Group Last Call about drafts > to choose as WG item > > Dear all, > > This point got lost on the mailing list, but it has been decided in the WG > session here at IETF-93 that there will be a Last Call for consensus about > which document of the below ones to take as starting point for the WG. > > > Here are the two drafts: > a) draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-03 > b) draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-03 > > Please respond to the tcpinc wg mailing list until > > July 31st, 2015 > 1pm CEST > > on wether you prefer > - either draft a) or b) > - or none > > to be accepted as WG item. > > Please write also your brief reasoning on why you made your choice. > > Please note that accepting a draft is not the end of working on the > technical content of the draft, but it is actually the starting point when > the WG has full change control about the content of the draft! > > > Regards, > > Martin Stiemerling > Transport Area Director > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
