IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Border, John" <John.Border@hughes.com> Thu, 22 October 2015 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <John.Border@hughes.com>
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 9DFF11B2D02 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.967
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.967 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 j8k4quxlZL9m for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00115401.pphosted.com (mx0b-00115401.pphosted.com [67.231.153.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 959B71B2E8F for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000707 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00115401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t9MMOeXM014119; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:27:42 -0400
Received: from hnse9.hns.com (hnse9.hns.com [208.236.67.251]) by mx0b-00115401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1xpvw391me-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:27:42 -0400
Received: from mail.hughes.com (expexchub.hughes.com [139.85.54.34]) by hnse9.hns.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.0) with ESMTP id t9MMReUo013013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:27:40 -0400
Received: from EXPEXCCAS2.hughes.com (139.85.54.105) by expexchub1.hughes.com (139.85.54.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:27:40 -0400
Received: from EXCMAIL3.hughes.com ([fe80::d5f:115:6cf:7c1f]) by EXPEXCCAS2.hughes.com ([2002:8b55:3669::8b55:3669]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:27:40 -0400
From: "Border, John" <John.Border@hughes.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpinc] Call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05
Thread-Index: AQHRC1danRoK0LHza0i0l6TgLEAIBJ54Gumw
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:27:39 +0000
Message-ID: <8593B383C0D0EF41ACD6832A6C051AA314E0B5CD@EXCMAIL3.hughes.com>
References: <56267097.7060509@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <56267097.7060509@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.33.14.254]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-10-23_01:2015-10-22,2015-10-22,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1508030000 definitions=main-1510220376
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/RnVZh0PXl0mNpWOChMxmivGE5vw>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05
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: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:28:05 -0000

I support adoption of this document...


John

-----Original Message-----
From: Tcpinc [mailto:tcpinc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:49 PM
To: tcpinc
Subject: [tcpinc] Call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-05

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email