[tcpinc] Next steps

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Fri, 07 August 2015 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC141B29D4 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 04:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JjL7vm6_C6mI for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 04:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C47D1B29C8 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 04:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F61D9315; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:04:24 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UubDNu3LwNst; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:04:23 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [192.168.178.33] (x5f718fd4.dyn.telefonica.de [95.113.143.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A608AD930B; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:04:23 +0200 (MEST)
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:04:22 +0200
Message-Id: <72BDDDC2-9258-4B80-9D4F-60749F07AB1F@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
To: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/BsftOgZEKLH6k-d_-NBKCZkgN4k>
Cc: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [tcpinc] Next steps
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for adding encryption to TCP." <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:04:29 -0000

Hi all,

as indicated in my last mail, from this point on our next step is to work in the tcp-eno proposal. The authors are currently updating their draft and plan to submit a new version soon.

Based on the positive feedback I’ve see so far, I hope we can run a call for adoption for this document in near future. As soon as the author have submitted a new version, please read the draft and indicate that you’ve read it on the mailing list!

Of course if you have time to make a full review and provide detailed comments, that would be great as well! If you provide such a detailed review, please also indicate if any of the comments provided are serious enough to argue to not adopt the draft (now), or if the comments could also be addressed with the next revision after adoption. Thanks in advance!

In we adopt this proposal as a basis for a common negotiation document, I would expect the authors of both proposals to update their draft to relate to this doc. Therefore we should see at least one more revision of each proposal. 

Hopeful by this point of time, both proposals will also have further evolved, such that we can re-start the discussion on adopting one or both of them. I know that both authors/author groups work on updating the drafts as well as updating their implementation. So I’m optimistic that we can further proceed here soon. 

Of course, if there are other people that have time to work on an independent (kernel?) implementation of one or both approaches that would be very helpful for the group as well! Maybe let me know if you plan any further work here!

Finally note that the plan still is to adopt at least one proposal latest at the next meeting. However, I hoping that we might even be able to do this step slightly early such that we can fully concentrate on technical discussions at the next meeting!

Mirja