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

["Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]>]

Agreed; no support

On 2015-10-21, at 0:51, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Given the choices presented, I do not support adoption of this draft.
> 
> That's not because of a technical flaw in the proposal, but mostly
> because I think that the future where this wg works on two proposals
> will end badly, despite everyone's good intentions (and I do think
> everyone here has good intentions).
> 
> I regret that the folks who are participating in this wg have not
> managed to bite the bullet and make the hard decision.
> 
> S.
> 
> PS: The technical pros and cons for this vs tcpcrypt have all been
> sufficiently well rehearsed so I won't repeat those.
> 
> On 20/10/15 17:49, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:u
>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc