Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:07:10AM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I'm confused as to why this is confusing tbh;-)

Fair enough :)

> On 24/06/2020 23:54, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > So it remains unclear to me whether we are being asked to consider "should
> > we spend time to do the polishing/analysis in (2) above", or if we are
> > being asked to (implicitly) consider something like (3) above, i.e., is
> > EDHOC or cTLS a better outcome for the greater Internet ecosystem.
> 
> Let me try this way:
> 
> - TLS has adopted cTLS. That will follow IETF process
>   and turn into an RFC or not.
> - The question here is whether or not this WG wants to
>   adopt edhoc, and then follow the usual IETF process
>   which will turn that into an RFC, or not.
> 
> If this WG adopts edhoc, one or both of cTLS and edhoc
> might or might not end up as an RFC.
> 
> If the WG don't adopt edhoc, then yes, it'd be time to
> shut up shop for this WG is my guess.
> 
> It is also true that once a WG adopts a draft, it is
> quite likely to end up as an RFC, but that is not the
> question we're answering now, and is not one we can
> answer, as it requires an IETF last call etc.
> 
> Does that help?

That all sounds good, thanks.

-Ben