Proceed with b) draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-03.
I am opposed to putting TLS into TCP. I think that approach as a
project will put too much weight above the waterline and capsize is the
likely option as soon as we hit heavy seas.
It could be any flavour of protocol inside TLS. But it should be lean,
tight, simple. And modern. And working code and experience speaks
volumes. b) has got all that, afaics.
While TLS has working code outside TCP, and substantial experience, it's
also got huge technical debt and is very slow to update at the
institutional level.
It's also philosophically troubling. TLS is for the people who need
security. TcpInc is for everyone else. Putting them together confuses
the discussion which leads to mission madness.
iang
On 24/07/2015 09:29 am, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
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
