Hi I support the adoption of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option because it is consistent with the works of the HTTPbis WG on opportunistic encryption.
Regards Emile De : Tcpinc [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Ted Hardie Envoyé : mercredi 21 octobre 2015 01:46 À : Mirja Kühlewind Cc : tcpinc Objet : Re: [tcpinc] Call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05 On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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. I support adoption of this draft on this basis. Ted 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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorization. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable if this message was modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
