Start with (b) tcpcrypt, and either adopt (a) once it is more specified or try to converge.
Part of this is pragmatic. If we end up with a protocol based on tcpcrypt, then we will probably want to have started working earlier since there is more content to review. Even if the drafts merge, to have more from TLS brought into tcpcrypt, the experience with working on tcpcrypt will be informative. — Tommy > On Jul 24, 2015, at 2:16 AM, Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > **Please use this CORRECTED version, as one option to choose from below > didn't make it into the original.**** > Thanks to Erik Rescola for pointing this out to me directly. > > 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) > - both drafts (a & b) as WG items > - or none > > to be accepted as WG item(s). > > 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
