Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

For the record (and sorry for the late reply): I think it would be a 
terrible idea to standardize both approaches. I obviously prefer one of 
them, but I think it is way more important to have one single standard 
solution for the industry to use. If we form a working group, it will be 
up to the WG to decide which of the options solves best the use case in 
question.

Thanks,
     Yaron

On 08/07/16 17:13, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB) wrote:
> Hi Yaron,
>
> On 08/07/2016 14:22, "Lurk on behalf of Yaron Sheffer"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>> I agree that we should not preclude future extensions. But this can be
>> done with a variety of tools, including a simple protocol version
>> number.
> A version number works well in the context of a single interface, not if
> we want have multiple interfaces under the LURK umbrella (see below).
>
>> Do you think something more extensive is called for?
> At the moment we have two main competing solutions: yours (let's call it
> "cert-delegation") and Daniel's/Rich&Sam's (the "tls-signing-box").
>
> I'm not sure whether only one will survive, or both will be standardised
> as LURK interfaces?
>
> If the latter, I'd probably want to have a way to know whether my edge
> cache has to talk using the "cert-delegation" and/or "tls-signing-box"
> interface with content provider X without having to turn knobs here and
> there to make it happen :-)
>
> Cheers, t
>