[tcpinc] Call for adoption for draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Tue, 15 September 2015 08:44 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CCA1ACCDF for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kz9Fz9rCYW-v for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32C161AC40A for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D92D9307 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:44:17 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id X3HOTDLboiQj for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:44:17 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [] (nb-10510.ethz.ch []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4464D9302 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:44:17 +0200 (MEST)
To: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <55F7DA1B.8010703@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:43:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/ONgLfgZBDkTZsngqFesTAW2qpR8>
Subject: [tcpinc] Call for adoption for draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno
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: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:44:22 -0000

Hi all,

I'd like to start a call to ask for adoption as working group document of


This is the third revision of draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno addressing feedback
provided on the list over the last couple of weeks. Based on this feedback and
the thereby indicated interest of the working group in this work, I believe this 
document is ready to ask for adoption as a starting point to work on a tcp
negotiation option (in a separate document for now).

Please note that as always the adoption of this document does not mean that we
have to publish it as it is, or publish it at all. The adoption only means that
the working group is interested in continuing work on this approach now and that 
the change rights go over to the working group such that we can 'enforce'
changes as a group based on consensus.

Please indicate until

	Monday, Sep 28, 2015

if you support the adoption of draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno-02 as working group
document of not.

As the chair I consider draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno in scope for the charter. To
adopt draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno it is necessary that I see enough interest and
energy in the working group to follow on with this work. Therefore please simply 
indicate if you support this work. If you don't support this work, I as a chair 
would be grateful, if you could provide some reasoning for this. If there is 
enough energy to work on this document, I would only consider strong technical 
flaws or any comments that show that this work would be harmful for the goals of 
the working group as a reason to not adopt the document.

Thanks to all!