IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 CBD841A900B for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 B_051ichn9f9 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A4AA1A8BB7 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgbb65 with SMTP id b65so30347787qgb.2 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dlPx+i7aJjRXrwq4UreGHxjxpccS4r64sx93STjFatk=; b=POiQt7mCgHoyCOFOXu7w9dX/v4ZgRUa0Z9GjjpBaFVbwFlo9Na+VQ0l+3C14wlmLbz yvRC5uKo981RzAtB68gBHdnhtRpN6jYJxFekJArEaokXg1+lZebCFwJbMB4okENi/kDa 4rxziMLKTj0qKVTJL4l8GIV33wvuVHKEiJVMFADY9TXZiJXhpWjVYUGXzhNNXilUEysx Wfmx/AbOuYmMnau3hQxjE8o2rBX5BZxxgDnjbS3TuAXb/AzU6XxQnfPGp+ApMiazE/iR dfLHukvXbALdmNOmiyjDtVuPSwnuDCBmlccKyXMjggW00lnAoRtk3Z3V2Y3KvVVANqaO BV+A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.104.243 with SMTP id a106mr7158095qgf.19.1445384742354; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.115.132 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56267097.7060509@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <56267097.7060509@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:45:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCFvnNy+AVekKR1ygg25-v-mZ6gcOHvb7Ts2VnaArRPMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134f6d621c40f052291dcd8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/tQBBbYgeFUn55rT_-5d2v94jwqY>
Cc: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:45:45 -0000

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <
mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> 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.
>
>
​I support adoption of this draft on this basis.

Ted​



> 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