That's great to hear! Looking forward to ECH traffic ramping up (from the looks of it 115 is slated to go out in July?)
Thanks, -- Achiel van der Mandele Product Manager On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:13 AM 'David Adrian' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > We've been running ECH at 50% Beta for TCP since I last posted (Nov 7, > 2022). We recently landed support for ECH+QUIC, which is also running on > Beta. We never made it to 1% Stable, so I'd like to continue to experiment > / actually start a stable experiment, probably from 115-119. > > The main server-side deployment we know of prefers QUIC, so the QUIC > implementation was blocking real data collection. > > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:29:07 PM UTC-7 David Adrian wrote: > >> An update: >> >> - We are deploying to 50% Beta as I write >> - We have seen very little usage so far, however the usage we do see >> is basically entirely successful. >> >> The main issue at this point is Chrome does not yet support ECH with QUIC >> connections, and the main deployment we know of prefers QUIC to TCP. We >> plan to add QUIC support before experimenting further, and will update this >> thread accordingly. >> >> Similarly, we will need to extend the length of this experiment at least >> through M111 in January, 2023. >> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 8:32 AM Mike West <mk...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> LGTM to experiment from M105 to M109 (inclusive). It'd be excellent to >>> come back to the group with initial results in the (likely?) case you need >>> to extend and revise. >>> >>> Good luck! >>> >>> -mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 8:03 PM David Benjamin <davi...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> (Sorry for the late reply. Was out sick for a bit.) >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 4:06 PM Mike West <mk...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm excited to see this! One question inline about timelines: >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 9:55:48 PM UTC+2 David Benjamin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Contact emailsdavi...@chromium.org, dad...@google.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ExplainerNone >>>>>> >>>>>> Specification >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-esni >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary >>>>>> >>>>>> The TLS Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) extension enables clients to >>>>>> encrypt ClientHello messages, which are normally sent in cleartext, >>>>>> under a >>>>>> server’s public key. This allows websites to opt-in to avoid leaking >>>>>> sensitive fields, like the server name, to the network by hosting a >>>>>> special >>>>>> HTTPS RR DNS record. (Earlier iterations of this extension were called >>>>>> Encrypted Server Name Indication, or ESNI.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Blink componentInternals>Network>SSL >>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Internals%3ENetwork%3ESSL> >>>>>> >>>>>> Search tagsech <https://chromestatus.com/features#tags:ech>, esni >>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/features#tags:esni>, tls >>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/features#tags:tls>, ssl >>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/features#tags:ssl> >>>>>> >>>>>> TAG reviewNot applicable; this is a protocol under IETF >>>>>> >>>>>> TAG review statusNot applicable >>>>>> >>>>>> Risks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>> >>>>>> As a networking protocol, interoperability risks look different from >>>>>> a web platform API: This is a draft of a developing protocol, so the >>>>>> final >>>>>> standard will differ from what we ship now. We manage this as in other >>>>>> protocol work: the draft uses different codepoints in the DNS record and >>>>>> ClientHello, set up to not conflict with the final standard. There is >>>>>> also >>>>>> a risk of breaking buggy servers or network middleware. ECH is DNS-gated, >>>>>> so non-ECH servers won't be exposed to ECH itself. We do implement ECH's >>>>>> GREASE mechanism (section 6.2 of the draft), but this should appear as >>>>>> any >>>>>> normal unrecognized extension to non-ECH servers. Servers and network >>>>>> elements that are compliant with RFC 8446, section 9.3, should not be >>>>>> impacted. We will be monitoring for these issues as part of the >>>>>> experiment, >>>>>> comparing error rates and handshake times both for HTTPS servers as a >>>>>> whole, and the subset of those that advertise ECH in DNS. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Gecko*: In development ( >>>>>> https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/07/encrypted-client-hello-the-future-of-esni-in-firefox >>>>>> ) >>>>>> >>>>>> *WebKit*: No signal >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be reasonable to ask via >>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Filed https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/46 >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> *Web developers*: Positive ( >>>>>> https://blog.cloudflare.com/encrypted-client-hello) >>>>>> >>>>>> *Other signals*: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ergonomics >>>>>> >>>>>> ECH is part of TLS, so it is largely abstracted away from web >>>>>> platform APIs themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Activation >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a network protocol and thus inherently requires server >>>>>> software changes. It also requires keys deployed in the HTTPS DNS record. >>>>>> At this stage in the process, we do not expect ECH to be deployed beyond >>>>>> a >>>>>> few early adopters. Rather, this experiment is part of real-world testing >>>>>> for the developing protocol. The connection with the DNS record is of >>>>>> particular note. It is possible that, due to DNS caching, etc., that the >>>>>> DNS record we fetch is out of sync with the server instance we talk to. >>>>>> ECH >>>>>> has a built-in recovery mechanism to repair these mismatches. One of the >>>>>> aims of the experiment will be to validate this mechanism. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Security >>>>>> >>>>>> See >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-esni-14#section-10 >>>>>> for security considerations in the specification >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WebView application risks >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>>>>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>>>>> >>>>>> No WebView-specific risks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Goals for experimentation >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a new extension to TLS. As part of the standardization >>>>>> process, we wish to validate the design, and ensure it works, performs >>>>>> well, etc. This is also the first time a TLS extension has been gated on >>>>>> DNS. This introduces a new set of deployment risks. ECH includes >>>>>> mechanisms >>>>>> to mitigate these risks, which we also aim to validate with this >>>>>> experiment. We'll do this by A/B testing clients with and without ECH >>>>>> enabled, and comparing error rates and latency across all TLS >>>>>> connections, >>>>>> and across just connections to hostnames with ECH keys in DNS. We'll also >>>>>> be looking at how often the recovery flow is used. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Reason this experiment is being extended >>>>>> >>>>>> n/a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ongoing technical constraints >>>>>> >>>>>> None >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>> >>>>>> Servers that use ECH are visible in the DevTools security panel. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?Yes >>>>>> >>>>>> While supported on all platforms, ECH requires keys fetched via DNS >>>>>> in the new HTTPS record. Chrome can currently fetch the HTTPS record over >>>>>> DoH and over our built-in DNS resolver. As of writing, the built-in DNS >>>>>> resolver is not yet enabled on Windows (https://crbug.com/1317948) >>>>>> and Linux (https://crbug.com/1350321). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>> ?No (see https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/20159) >>>>>> >>>>>> Flag nameencrypted-client-hello >>>>>> >>>>>> Requires code in //chrome?False >>>>>> >>>>>> Tracking bughttps://crbug.com/1091403 >>>>>> >>>>>> Launch bughttps://crbug.com/1349902 >>>>>> >>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>> DevTrial on desktop 105 >>>>>> DevTrial on Android 105 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When do you plan to end the experiment? M109, perhaps? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Didn't have a particular set end time... depends on how long it takes >>>> to answer our questions and how things shake out I suppose. We can >>>> tentatively say M109 if we need an end date. (Although at this point I >>>> suspect a lot of the milestones will get shifted over anyway.) >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6196703843581952 >>>>>> >>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussionsIntent to prototype: >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/YEo4LqB7nWI >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/>. >>>>>> >>>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/KrPqrd-pO2M/unsubscribe > . > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/df76ac9a-856e-4639-8eb0-c5658e65bc44n%40chromium.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/df76ac9a-856e-4639-8eb0-c5658e65bc44n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAAon-tsq%3DPG%2BJcamnWT%2BBBtV1PiC-m2NG557dt03sE5H%3Dnx%2BiQ%40mail.gmail.com.
