Marcelo,
We would like to ask the WG to express their support to adopt one
(or none) of the following documents as WG document that will serve
as a basis for the protocol specification. Of course, the draft,
if adopted, will need to updated according to the WG input. In
particular, they need to be updated to not protect the TCP header.
The candidate drafts are:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option/
We plan to discuss this on the meeting but it would be useful to start
the discussion before the meeting, so if you can express your opinions
before the meeting, it would be helpful.
I don't think that this is the right question to ask. Tcpcrypt is a
mature proposal while tcpinc-tls is a first idea that could lead to a
more detailed draft later.
There are two high level questions that are hidden behind the draft
adoption question that you asked :
1. Key exchange : do the working group members want to define a new key
exchange scheme (see tcpcrypt) or reuse (some of) the existing TLS key
exchange mechanisms
2. Encoding of protocol information : do the working group members
prefer to encode information related to the operation of tcpinc mainly
in the TCP payload by using a TLV format or mainly in TCP options
Currently, tcpcrypt relies mainly on TCP options and defines a new key
exchange mechanims, while tcpinc-tls does not rely on TCP options and
reuse the TLS key exchange schemes. These are two possible designs once
we have answered these two questions, but not the only ones. Other
combinations are possible. For example, tcpinc could design a new key
exchange mechanism and encode the tcpinc information by using a TLV
format in the payload.
I think that we should first discuss these two high level design
questions before looking at the details of these two drafts.
Olivier
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
