As a co-author, I support adoption of tcpcrypt.
-Eric Smith
On 10/20/15 9:47 AM, 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
