Subject: [tcpinc] Consensus call: questions posed at the Berlin session

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:29:23 -0400

Here is a list of questions posed at the Berlin session, along with the
rough consensus established among those in the room. Please respond to each
by number if you were not in attendance and have an opinion, especially if
that differs from the meeting consensus, indicated by a * after each
question.

TCP-ENO

1. Eliminate the m bit for now and replace it with another z bit? (The
intention is that the m bit will be defined by a later draft that makes use
of it.) Y*/N

2. Eliminate length word for ENO suboptions (restricting all but the last
suboption to 32 bytes of data)? Y*/N

3. Change "spec" to "TCPINC Encryption Protocol", and use "TEP" as acronym?
Y*/N

4. Add RFC-5705-like key exporter mechanism? Y/N*

tcpcrypt

5. Encrypt frame lengths? Y/N*

** The next question was a bit muddied, so I have separated it into two
questions:

6a. Add a separate API document for tcpcrypt? Y/N*
6b. Move API description in tcpcrypt draft to a separate section of the ENO
API draft? Y*/N

If there is substantive disagreement on any of these questions, we will
pose the question again separately and ask for a re-establishment of rough
consensus among all interested parties.

Please try to respond by Monday, August 1.

Thanks,
Kyle

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:28:19 -0400

> that differs from the meeting consensus, indicated by a * after each

Does this mean that the chairs do not want e-mailed responses from
people who were in attendance?

     --dkg

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:04:44 -0400

What I'm looking for is substantive dissent from what was decided in the
room, such that rough consensus is called into question, and to save folks
the effort of responding if they are in agreement with what was
provisionally decided at the meeting.

But you (or anyone else) should absolutely feel free to post a response
even if you were in attendance.

I think this is in the spirit of "conduct business on the mailing list"
because the questions are still open until we've either confirmed or
overturned rough consensus on each.

Thanks,
Kyle

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]
> wrote: