Agreed; no support On 2015-10-21, at 0:51, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Given the choices presented, I do not support adoption of this draft. > > That's not because of a technical flaw in the proposal, but mostly > because I think that the future where this wg works on two proposals > will end badly, despite everyone's good intentions (and I do think > everyone here has good intentions). > > I regret that the folks who are participating in this wg have not > managed to bite the bullet and make the hard decision. > > S. > > PS: The technical pros and cons for this vs tcpcrypt have all been > sufficiently well rehearsed so I won't repeat those. > > On 20/10/15 17:49, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:u >> Hi all, >> >> please indicate if you support adoption of >> draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05 as a tcpinc working group item, or >> not, by >> >> Monday, Nov 2, 2015. >> >> draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option is one candidate for tcpinc where the >> first version of this draft was proposed more than a year ago. Verison >> -04 was release about three weeks ago and specifies the TLS 1.3 profile >> as well as the use of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option with tcp-eno. >> Since then this draft received a lot of discussion. The lasted update >> was provided yesterday, but only changes a few minor fixes. >> >> Similar as before, 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-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option >> 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-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05. >> >> This process may lead to the 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
