On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> Instead of just having all of these document stuck indefinitely, I'm
> proposing that we:
> 1: Ask the RFC Editor to return the document to the IESG & IETF[1].
> 2: I return it to the WG.
> 3: The authors remove the bits that rely on ESNI
> 4: The document progresses "normally" - it gets another WGLC, IETF LC, IESG
> Eval, etc. Hopefully this can be expedited - it's already gone though all of
> these steps once, and the updated document would be very similar to the
> original.
>
> 5: If / when tls-esni is published, the svcb-https authors submit a -bis
> (while will likely just be 'git checkout <current_version>'), and we progress
> this just like any other WG document.
>
> I've discussed this with the authors of the documents, the DNSOP and TLS
> chairs, the relevant ADs and the full IESG.
>
> However, before doing all this, I'd like to confirm that the WG doesn't
> object to the plan….
This sounds like a good plan to me.
Joe
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
