I agree with the "ecb-in-svcb" document over a -bis, as the (soon to exist)
registry states only expert review.
The one thing we have not discussed is Warren's comment
[0] Possibly modulo the annoyingly painful "AliasMode clarification"
change:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 1:41 PM David Schinazi
wrote:
> Moving the ECH/ESNI bits from draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https
> to draft-ietf-tls-esni seems to be the simplest option by far here. I
> strongly support that.
> David
>
Currently, draft-ietf-tls-esni runs to 40 pages excluding the references
an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I don’t expect ECH to be the only security improvement enabled by SVCB, and the
specification itself is designed to allow additions like that without being
baked in from the start.
Any issues posed by adding ECH later are indicative of issues with
Moving the ECH/ESNI bits from draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https
to draft-ietf-tls-esni seems to be the simplest option by far here. I
strongly support that.
David
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:38 AM Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2023, at 10:14 AM, Benjamin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > I'm OK with this, al
On Feb 23, 2023, at 10:14 AM, Benjamin Schwartz 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-i
