Diff at: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ekr/tcpinc-tls/gh-pages/draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-from--05.diff.html
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
