Re: [tcpinc] Call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05

I support the adoption of tcpinc-tls.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Mirja Kühlewind
<mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> please indicate if you support adoption of
> draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05 as a tcpinc working group item, or not,
> by
>
>         Monday, Nov 2, 2015.
>
> draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option is one candidate for tcpinc where the first
> version of this draft was proposed more than a year ago. Verison -04 was
> release about three weeks ago and specifies the TLS 1.3 profile as well as
> the use of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option with tcp-eno. Since then this
> draft received a lot of discussion. The lasted update was provided
> yesterday, but only changes a few minor fixes.
>
> Similar as before, if you do not support adoption of this document because
> you think it is not in scope for the wg or has fundamental technicals flaws
> and would therefore harm the goals of the wg, it would be great if you could
> given some reasoning/explanation with your response.
>
> This is solely an adoption call for draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option
> independent of any other documents. If you have a personal preference for a
> different approach that should not be a reason to reject this adoption.
> Forcing the wg to make a decision has not worked previously, and even though
> both proposed approaches have evolved, I do not see any indication that the
> wg is now ready to make a decision. The goal of this adoption call is to
> figure out if there is enough interest and energy to further follow the
> approach as outlined in draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05.
>
> This process may lead to the situation where the wg will adopt and work on
> two solution approaches. This does not mean that the wg will publish two
> (incompatible) approaches, as this would not fulfill our charter. If we end
> up adopting more than one approach, I currently see three way to proceed:
>
> 1) Both approaches (naturally) converge into one approach.
>
> 2) We work on both approaches to get them into a (similar) state where the
> wg is able to make a decision (and withdraw the other doc).
>
> 3) We publish both approaches as different 'versions' of tcpinc that can be
> negotiated in the tcp-eno handshake, where at least one of them is mandatory
> to support/implement.
>
> Thanks!
> Mirja
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> Tcpinc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc