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

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/21/20 4:53 PM, Christopher Wood wrote:
> If this is the case, why are we already considering adopting and
> moving forward with EDHOC?

It's historically been a matter of policy that the IETF lets the
market choose the winning technology, rather than choosing it
ourselves.  I think it's led to a lot of waste, both because
we end up putting a lot of effort into things that never see
much (or any) deployment and because we end up solving the same
problems over and over and over again (talking to middleboxes,
let me count the ways), but it strikes me as consistent
with existing practice to do both EDHOC and cTLS, and then seeing
what falls out.  That is to say, if you really want to see EDHOC
not move forward it's probably best to either provide a strictly
technical argument or argue that the time has come for the IETF
to start selecting the "correct" way to solve each problem.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis