From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213909175; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:16:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE1520D06; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 05:16:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 05:16:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Sx52y34GYufFQrZ /JrBfWbyrUa+uFVsZwUMRUhzSGp0=; b=O6uwH9/hb2WYlVnvJ4IP6bkgGgsY8Sm BpMZN2t7ygQ2xPrieUjZ7pBmlshEAf8sMTN7YGw2EhMY4OxGWDeplBBweS4FKUpE ep4OCKPMbg/SQbdN6fzUzv0obijZv4HxsrdGE2bJY9ozi7c3022EhdcWRlzrfDW+ Wiw5aTB/U9hc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=Sx52y34GYufFQrZ/JrBfWbyrUa+uFVsZwUMRUhzSGp0=; b=Wg4GEF2D 2/U7md1xMCS7izP1unMXzVs+cQta0iBoAjfcsPEF9CFsAfozHowtpsPHgBCpFx6P g6a1YG1k1+q8wFEOxmIgSS3MbnItDbjm9/SdYAQ/bSUja5vbASe6JIlSY8nnPWe9 XtNXjy9jkIRJwZ1ppA8VqbshO9Z1dxpev+NKP0J1WK1kmimfqqGkLuMnagtXh2C4 PfCmkTURgjmOJtH5PE7JkQ1lnwhQxglRbj/7DY548nXjmlU9x7RLEfjHHm6v5/OG 3b/HF8p2ONG9PADcAtdxK84mcglHI2/tZ8LxA9kRZyHeev9JJQhMmbINzEwlXqPB ZthVueo/H/+ryA== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: hHcwB6wUjU+PpXT6vGpbRkk+lu3fe40nIgbdNUE4xKXI 1503047801 Received: from xps.localnet (60.114.118.80.rev.sfr.net [80.118.114.60]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1B1A17FA69; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 05:16:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Hemant Agrawal Cc: Akhil Goyal , Radu Nicolau , 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 , techboard@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:16:39 +0200 Message-ID: <4861108.dgZJ5lNHcd@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20170725112153.29699-1-akhil.goyal@nxp.com> <4cee6900-f886-6997-6911-6c9ca1735e65@nxp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/4] rte_security: API definitions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:16:42 -0000 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.