Given the choices presented, I support adoption of this draft. S.
On 20/10/15 17:47, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > Hi all, > > please indicate if you support adoption of > draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-04 as a tcpinc working group item, or not, by > > Monday, Nov 2, 2015. > > draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt is one candidate for tcpinc where the first > version of that draft was proposed about a year ago. In the mean time > this proposal has received broad feedback. The latest version was > published only a few days ago, however, this version adapts the tcpcrypt > proposal to tcp-eno, which we adopted as a wg item a couple weeks ago, > and therefore simplifies the draft. > > If you do not support adoption of this document because you think it is > not in scope for the wg or has fundamental technicals flaws and would > therefore harm the goals of the wg, it would be great if you could given > some reasoning/explanation with your response. > > This is solely an adoption call for draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt > independent of any other documents. If you have a personal preference > for a different approach that should not be a reason to reject this > adoption. Forcing the wg to make a decision has not worked previously, > and even though both proposed approaches have evolved, I do not see any > indication that the wg is now ready to make a decision. The goal of this > adoption call is to figure out if there is enough interest and energy to > further follow the approach as outlined in > draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-04. A separate adoption call for the other > proposed solution will following. > > This process may lead to a situation where the wg will adopt and work on > two solution approaches. This does not mean that the wg will publish two > (incompatible) approaches, as this would not fulfill our charter. If we > end up adopting more than one approach, I currently see three way to > proceed: > > 1) Both approaches (naturally) converge into one approach. > > 2) We work on both approaches to get them into a (similar) state where > the wg is able to make a decision (and withdraw the other doc). > > 3) We publish both approaches as different 'versions' of tcpinc that can > be negotiated in the tcp-eno handshake, where at least one of them is > mandatory to support/implement. > > Thanks! > Mirja > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc > _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
