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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Diff at:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ekr/tcpinc-tls/gh-pages/draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option-from--05.diff.html

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Obviously, I support adoption of this draft for the reasons I've stated
> before.
>
> Also, Mirja pointed out that I accidentally submitted the -05 draft off
> the wrong
> branch so it is just a rebuild of the -04 draft. The to-be-06 draft is on
> github
> at:
>
> http://ekr.github.io/tcpinc-tls/
>
> This contains a number of changes to address people's reviews. If you
> think some of those make it worse, please let me know on a separate
> thread. :)
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <
> [e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
>>
>
>