I am in favor of adoption of this draft. Kyle
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Mirja Kühlewind < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
