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

Obviously, I support adoption of this draft for the reasons I've stated
before.

Also, Mirja pointed out that I accidentally submitted the -05 draft off the
wrong
branch so it is just a rebuild of the -04 draft. The to-be-06 draft is on
github
at:

http://ekr.github.io/tcpinc-tls/

This contains a number of changes to address people's reviews. If you
think some of those make it worse, please let me know on a separate
thread. :)

-Ekr

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
>