As discussed during today's call, -10 is now out. I'll update pointers in the
interop matrix and related pages.
Stay tuned for a doodle to schedule the interim meetings!
Best,
Chris (no hat)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, at 10:07 AM, Christopher Wood wrote:
> The WG previously decided to make draft-iet
Fine by me.
> On Feb 24, 2021, at 10:07 AM, Christopher Wood wrote:
>
> The WG previously decided to make draft-ietf-tls-esni-09 the official target
> for interop. The diff between this version and the current editor's copy of
> the draft is below:
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1
This should be fine. Moving to HPKE-v1 will remove an awkward dependency
problem now that we're starting to use HPKE for other things.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, at 05:07, Christopher Wood wrote:
> The WG previously decided to make draft-ietf-tls-esni-09 the official
> target for interop. The diff b
Maybe tag the git revision that you intend to publish as -10?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 4:39 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 24/02/2021 21:30, Christopher Patton wrote:
> > Hey Stephen, I'd imagine the CF server will stay at ECH-10 through
> > IETF 110.
>
> Great. If I don't get it working by t
On 24/02/2021 21:30, Christopher Patton wrote:
Hey Stephen, I'd imagine the CF server will stay at ECH-10 through
IETF 110.
Great. If I don't get it working by then I
probably never will:-)
So, formally anointing -10 is ok whenever.
Cheers,
S.
Best, Chris P.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 1:1
Hey Stephen, I'd imagine the CF server will stay at ECH-10 through IETF 110.
Best,
Chris P.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 1:13 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 24/02/2021 18:07, Christopher Wood wrote:
> > The WG previously decided to make draft-ietf-tls-esni-09 the official
> target for in
Hiya,
On 24/02/2021 18:07, Christopher Wood wrote:
The WG previously decided to make draft-ietf-tls-esni-09 the official target
for interop. The diff between this version and the current editor's copy of the
draft is below:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/d
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:08 AM Christopher Wood
wrote:
>
> What do other implementers think?
>
>From the Rustls perspective, I think it's fine. The project has been
refactoring its handshake code, one benefit of which will be to make
ECH integration easier.
Ring [1], the crypto library the pr
