[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/4] rte_security: API definitions

[Thomas Monjalon]

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.