Martin Stiemerling wrote this message on Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 04:16 -0500:
> 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
I prefer draft b, tcpcrypt.
> 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!
tcpcrypt has the experience of a working implementation, and did work
and research the impact on middleware boxes to ensure that it would
work. It is also a concise and complete specification.
The TLS proposal also limits the ability to make modifications as
needed to achieve the goal of this WG if it continues to need to
interoperate w/ the TLS spec/WG.
The TLS proposal still allows for implementations to do a minimal
implementation where TLS is pushed down to userland. This option
should not be allowed as vendors will implement this, and then claim
compliance to the RFC. Requiring a userland
implementation/modification breaks a point that this WG requires:
"The protocol must be usable by unmodified applications.". Any spec
that allows implementations to require userland modification should be
removed from consideration.
Thanks.
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
