Re: [tcpinc] AD review of tcp-eno

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

It seems we've mostly hit on what needs to be done for the next draft, but
I wanted to address one item:

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Since the point of TCP-ENO is to make it significantly easier to develop
> > future TEPs than it would be to develop TCP encryption schemes from
> > scratch, and since the TCP option for tcpcrypt and TCP-ENO caused a fair
> > amount of friction in the TCPINC working group, I feel reasonably
> > strongly that it would be best to give out TEP identifiers well in
> > advance of RFC publication, provided there is a plausible draft
> > specification.
>
> This is what early allocation is for. We could have also asked for early
> allocation for tcpinc as soon as the spec was reasonably stable but given
> there was no-one who was actually about to deploy this in the Internet, it
> was probably not necessary.
>
> Also I assume your intention here is that you still want to have an RFC at
> the end. If you go for „Specification required“ any kind of spec would be
> accepted and it doesn’t have to be an RFC. Therefor „RFC Required“ would be
> better.
>
> Also, as I said it is not necessary to note explicitly that early
> allocation is possible (because that’s always possible), but you can still
> make a point that people are encourage to ask for early allocation (at wg
> adoption time?).
>

Does it make sense to allocate a few TEP IDs (e.g., 0x7c-0x7f) as explicit
"for testing purposes: not for production use" IDs that implementors can
use in testing? Another alternative is an explicit ExID-like mechanism, but
that seems far too heavy-weight for something like ENO. A range like this
would at least offer implementors a no-effort way to do their own
development and testing without poisoning other TEP IDs.

Kyle