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.go...@nxp.com)
2. Boris (bor...@mellanox.com)
3. Declan Doherty (declan.dohe...@intel.com)
Regards,
Hemant
