Hi Iang, hi all,
just as a side comment on this bit:
On 22.10.2015 12:36, ianG wrote:
2. Would we get a slower result by having two proposals?
Yes. There is no doubt at all that we will expend energy and
potentially enter into deadly embrace if we have two proposals. We've
already lost a year.
Even if the two proposals enter a convergence path, it will still be
lost time, probably another year, more likely 2-3. We also have a
serious risk of entering deadly embrace.
The reason why I'm not forcing a decision right now is because I don't want
to loose any further time. I personally agree that basically both proposals
are find and, both proposals could fulfill our charter, so my mail goal here
as a chair is to publish a solution as soon as possible; also because if we
wait to long, tcpinc might not be useful anymore.
This is also reflected by the milestones we finally set up:
Aug 2016 Submit extended API to IESG as Informational
Jul 2016 Submit unauthenticated key exchange mechanism and extensions to
current TCP to IESG for publication as Experimental
Mar 2016 Adpot first WG document on extended API
Nov 2015 Adopt first WG document on unauthenticated key exchange mechanism
and extensions to current TCP
I will try very hard to stick to this time schedule; that's also why we have
adoption calls right now. And in case we end up adopting both proposals and
one of the author teams does not make the given time-line, that might simply
be the decision for the other proposal.
Mirja
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
