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

[Boris Pismenny]

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 at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:17
> To: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>
> Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau
> <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; declan.doherty at intel.com; Aviad
> Yehezkel <aviadye at mellanox.com>; Boris Pismenny <borisp at mellanox.com>;
> pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com; sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com; Sandeep
> Malik <sandeep.malik at nxp.com>; techboard at 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.