I support this draft too (no surprise there!). To be clear though, although I prefer tcpcrypt, I believe either approach would be much better than doing nothing.
Of your three ways to proceed, I think (1) is unlikely to occur because the difference is philosophical rather than just technical. Mark On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 05:47 PM, 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
