Obviously, I support adoption of this draft for the reasons I've stated before.
Also, Mirja pointed out that I accidentally submitted the -05 draft off the wrong branch so it is just a rebuild of the -04 draft. The to-be-06 draft is on github at: http://ekr.github.io/tcpinc-tls/ This contains a number of changes to address people's reviews. If you think some of those make it worse, please let me know on a separate thread. :) -Ekr On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Mirja Kühlewind < [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. > > 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
