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

Have you actually read the TLS 1.3 profile in my draft?

-Ekr

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:43 AM, ianG <iang@iang.org> wrote:

> I do not support putting TLS into TCP.
>
> It is a heavyweight, one size fits all, baggage laden protocol.  Putting
> something complicated and baggage-laden into TCP is going to harm the
> overall goal of TCPINC - get some lightweight opportunistic encryption out
> there where we can, because the alternate is no security.
>
> From an engineering perspective, putting TLS into TCP increases the
> chances of no security, IMHO.
>
> iang
>
>
>
>
> On 20/10/2015 17:49 pm, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> Tcpinc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
>