Hi!
The author of "A well-known URI for publishing ECHConfigList values" [0]
presented at IETF 113 in dispatch [1]. He was directed to dnsop, but dnsop
passed on adopting the I-D. To explore the 2nd option suggested by dispatch,
please send a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 23 June 2022 tha
The TLS WG has placed draft-farrell-tls-wkesni in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Sean Turner)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-tls-wkesni/
Comment:
The I-D was originally discussed in dispatch. They suggested dnsop and then
tls. dnsop
I am supportive of this effort, but I am not convinced that the proposed
mechanism is right.
In ECH, there are two essential deployment topologies: "shared" and
"split". In "shared" mode there is operationally only one TLS server
(processing inner and outer ClientHellos); in "split" mode there ar
> The author of "A well-known URI for publishing ECHConfigList values" [0]
> presented at IETF 113 in dispatch [1]. He was directed to dnsop, but dnsop
> passed on adopting the I-D. To explore the 2nd option suggested by dispatch,
> please send a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 23 June 202
Hi Ben,
On 08/06/2022 20:35, Ben Schwartz wrote:
I am supportive of this effort, but I am not convinced that the proposed
mechanism is right.
That's fair. FWIW, I do agree the issues you identify below
warrant discussion (my preference of course is to do that
after WG adoption:-)
In ECH, t
Willing to review and support adoption. Since they barely come up in the
draft, I'm not sure the "topologies" described in the ECH document should
be mentioned at all (I've said this before... apologies for the repetition).
thanks,
Rob
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:52 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
> On
