> So while having two different RFCs does not seem like the end of the > world, forcing them both to proceed in lockstep may greatly delay > deploying anything. Would it be possible to decouple progress on the > two protocols by working group consensus?
I think that's possible. This will likely come down to the form of the references from the TCP-ENO draft to each of the protocol drafts - a normative reference results in the TCP-ENO draft not being published as an RFC until any normatively referenced protocol draft is also published as an RFC (I have a draft that's been at the RFC editor for many months now due to this sort of reference wait). Of course, this begs the "mandatory to implement" (MTI) topic that we discussed yesterday, as the reference from TCP-ENO to the/a MTI protocol has to be normative, and the chairs would like to defer that discussion for the time being. Thanks, --David & Mirja > -----Original Message----- > From: Tcpinc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Mazieres > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 6:26 AM > To: tcpinc > Subject: Re: [tcpinc] 1 vs 2 > > "Black, David" <[email protected]> writes: > > > Lars, > > > > Mirja explained the path forward in this case in the adoption calls > > for both drafts: > > Suppose we go down path 3, namely to publish both approaches as > different versions of tcpinc. Is it required that both be published > simultaneously? If we can just publish each RFC when it is ready, then > there might be incentive for people to work on independent > implementations. > > Right now, one problem for anyone considering investing time in tcpcrypt > is that even if we get the draft into great shape, get two independent > implementations, etc., we might still end up stuck waiting for > TCP-use-TLS, which might in turn be stuck waiting for TLS 1.3. > > So while having two different RFCs does not seem like the end of the > world, forcing them both to proceed in lockstep may greatly delay > deploying anything. Would it be possible to decouple progress on the > two protocols by working group consensus? > > David > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
