I support the adoption of this document as a WG item. Craig Everhart
On 10/30/15, 10:49 PM, "Tcpinc on behalf of Mirja Kühlewind" <tcpinc-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: >Hi all, > >just a reminder that there are two days left to provide feedback on the >adoption of > > draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-04 > >David & Mirja > > >> Am 21.10.2015 um 01:47 schrieb Mirja Kühlewind >><mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch>: >> >> Hi all, >> >> please indicate if you support adoption of >>draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-04 as a tcpinc working group item, or not, >>by >> >> Monday, Nov 2, 2015. >> >> draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt is one candidate for tcpinc where the >>first version of that draft was proposed about a year ago. In the mean >>time this proposal has received broad feedback. The latest version was >>published only a few days ago, however, this version adapts the tcpcrypt >>proposal to tcp-eno, which we adopted as a wg item a couple weeks ago, >>and therefore simplifies the draft. >> >> 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-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt >>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-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-04. A separate adoption call for the other >>proposed solution will following. >> >> This process may lead to a 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 _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list Tcpinc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
