Greetings, all, My opinion is close enough to Ted's for me to quote it:
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 18:40, Ted Hardie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since there was a request to restate viewpoints on the list even for those of > us vocal at the meeting, my current preference is for moving forward with > both, with an aim toward convergence if possible. > > I think both provide a reasonable starting point, with the trade-offs between > the two being difficult to assess on an apples-to-apples basis (simplicity > versus re-use, to boil it down). Given the lack of consensus for either, I > would prefer starting with both than continuing to block on this decision. > Should consensus emerge to continue with either one, I will support that > consensus. (in other words, adopt both with a view toward convergence within the WG process, support consensus around either as a starting point should it develop.) No matter where we start, I believe a successful TCPINC protocol will have the following properties: (1) plays very nicely with (D)TLS (1.x): TCPINC should be seen as a transitional technology, as a way to reduce the proportion of cleartext traffic on the Internet while application-layer protocols are redesigned and reimplemented with confidentiality in mind. Given that TLS is the default way to build security in now, this implies simple runtime upgrade to TLS is a necessary feature. We can have a discussion about which version to support this upgrade to -- since it's a transition technology to doing things right, we can target upgrade to / integration with a future (D)TLS version. (A) plays very nicely with kernel TCP implementations: the requirements here are "minimal connection setup latency penalty" and "negligible steady-state throughput penalty given sufficient processing power and/or crypto acceleration", which currently implies relatively tight integration into the stack. Cheers, Brian > regards, > > Ted > > > On Fri, 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
