From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] rte_security: API definitions
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:50:50 +0530
Message-ID: <ec8be664-9663-d51a-60d9-884524604a9f@nxp.com>
References: <20170725112153.29699-1-akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
 <4cee6900-f886-6997-6911-6c9ca1735e65@nxp.com>
 <AM2PR04MB075365F0374B7F006106BB1489820@AM2PR04MB0753.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <4861108.dgZJ5lNHcd@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>, Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
 <dev@dpdk.org>, <declan.doherty@intel.com>, <aviadye@mellanox.com>,
 <borisp@mellanox.com>, <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
 <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>, Sandeep Malik <sandeep.malik@nxp.com>,
 <techboard@dpdk.org>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
In-Reply-To: <4861108.dgZJ5lNHcd@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 8/18/2017 2:46 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 16/08/2017 17:40, Hemant Agrawal:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> 	Can we get a next-security tree to do development around this proposal?
>>
>> Also, we can discuss about this proposal in general in next techboard meeting.
>
> First question to ask:
> Why not create a repository elsewhere for your trials?
>
github is a good place, but I heard some companies (e.g. Intel) may have 
concerns over posting the work to github.

> The benefit of creating a dpdk.org repo is to show it as an official feature.
> So the idea behind this new library must be accepted by the technical board first.
>
agree. we will discuss it in next tech board meeting.

> The other use of official repos is prepare pull request for subsequent releases.
> Do we want to have a -next tree for IPsec development and keep it for next releases?
>
I believe it will be required for few release. In future, this work can 
merge and maintained in next-crypto. However this may change as we develop.

> I think it makes sense to have a -next tree for IPsec offloading in general.
> Before the techboard approves it, we need to define the name (and the scope)
> of the tree, and who will be the maintainer of the tree.
>
I see following individual maintaining it :
1. Akhil Goyal (akhil.goyal@nxp.com)
2. Boris (borisp@mellanox.com)
3. Declan Doherty (declan.doherty@intel.com)

Regards,
Hemant