I support adoption of Bittau / tcpcrypt. We need something that is
light, focused and has precise experience backing its deployment.
iang
On 20/10/2015 17:47 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
