Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] rte_security: API definitions

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:thomas@monjalon.net]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:17
To: Hemant Agrawal <redacted>
Cc: Akhil Goyal <redacted>; Radu Nicolau
[off-list ref]; dev@dpdk.org; declan.doherty@intel.com; Aviad
Yehezkel [off-list ref]; Boris Pismenny [off-list ref];
pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com; sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com; Sandeep
Malik [off-list ref]; techboard@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] rte_security: API definitions

Hi,

16/08/2017 17:40, Hemant Agrawal:

quoted

Hi Thomas,
	Can we get a next-security tree to do development around this

proposal?

quoted

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.