Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review

[Василий Долматов <[e-mail]>]

> 17 июля 2016 г., в 16:06, Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]> написал(а):
> 
> 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.
Ein Reiche, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer?

Pfff..,,

dol@

> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lurk mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lurk