Lars, Mirja explained the path forward in this case in the adoption calls for both drafts:
> 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. The choice between 1/2/3 is up to the WG. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Tcpinc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:19 PM > To: Eggert, Lars; tcpinc > Subject: Re: [tcpinc] 1 vs 2 > > Hi Lars, > > Am 04.11.15 um 09:57 schrieb Eggert, Lars: > > Hi, > > > > first, I apologize if I missed a message and was confused about the > > process we'd be following to come to a decision. But I was a bit > > surprised that we now seem to have adopted both individual documents > > as WG items? I had - probably mistakenly - assumed that we'd take > > forward only one, and that we were trying to decide which one. > > Mirja, WG chair, tried to determine after the last IETF meeting in > Prague if there is rough consensus for one of the drafts which are > proposing a protocol. There was no rough consensus to select either the > TLS-based or tcpcrypt as WG item. Actually it looked already at time, > that both drafts are preferred by the WG to go forward. > > > > > Taking forward both is to me the least preferable option. While I > > have expressed a strong preference for one candidate, I'd rather > > grumble for a bit and then help do only the other one than doing > > both. Doing both is just going to create endless confusion and pain > > down the road. The technical differences are not large enough IMO to > > warrant a dual approach (although they are large enough to cause me > > to have a preference.) > > > > In other words, I'd rather see you flip a coin now. > > There seems not to be sufficient consensus to this way either, as this > was mentioned/discussed in Prague, too. > > Not having rough consensus for either protocol proposal, the wish to not > flip a coin and the appearance that there is some preference to work on > both lead to the call for consensus to adopt both drafts. > > I am personally would also prefer one protocol to work from, but the > history of the WG lead us to the point where we are now. > > Further, I do not like to open up this question again in the WG session, > as we have had sufficient time in the WG to see which protocol(s) to use > and the WG has finally made a decision to move forward. At least the WG > is moving forward. > > As said, this is not the best possible outcome in my private opinion, > but we are not deadlocked in the WG anymore. > > Martin > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
