Hi all,
just a reminder that there are two days left to provide feedback on the
adoption of
draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-04
David & Mirja
> Am 21.10.2015 um 01:47 schrieb Mirja Kühlewind
> <[email protected]>:
>
> 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
