For drafting, we have opened this github repository: https://github.com/Mellanox/dpdk-next-crypto
Akhil/Hemant could you please push your rte_security patches there? > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:17 > To: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau > <radu.nico...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; declan.dohe...@intel.com; Aviad > Yehezkel <avia...@mellanox.com>; Boris Pismenny <bor...@mellanox.com>; > pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com; sergio.gonzalez.mon...@intel.com; Sandeep > Malik <sandeep.ma...@nxp.com>; techbo...@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] rte_security: API definitions > > 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? > > 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. > > 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 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.
