On Feb 23, 2023, at 10:14 AM, Benjamin Schwartz <i...@bemasc.net> wrote: > > I'm OK with this, although personally I'm happy to just wait for ECH. I had > hoped for a simpler solution (like marking SVCB's dependency on ECH as > Informative), but I can understand if the IESG thinks there's no other way.
draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https has MUST-level requirements for how to handle ECH, so it isn't really possible to mark the dependency as informational. > If we are chopping the ECH parts out of SVCB, I would prefer to publish them > later as a separate document, rather than stuffing them into ECH or opening a > SVCB-bis. I think that will be clearer for readers and will minimize further > delays. Yes, an ecb-in-svcb document would be much better than a -bis, unless there are significant other changes to make in the -bis. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
