Hi! Especially for this draft which has been lingering for a while and hasn’t
changed much in a year, the chairs would like to see some positive
confirmations that this I-D is ready to head out the door.
Cheers,
spt
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 17:03, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> This email starts the 2nd
> Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf-tls-esni, Joe and I
> would like to determine whether there is consensus to request two early code
> point assignments
Yes, fully support.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma
> Hi! Especially for this draft which has been lingering for a while and hasn’t
> changed much in a year, the chairs would like to see some positive
> confirmations that this I-D is ready to head out the door.
I re-read the draft. It is clear, well-motivated, and simple. Ready to leave
the ne
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 21:39, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> I wonder if we also need to say something about the ech= SVCB
> parameter value 5 that's reserved at [1]? Not sure, but maybe
> no harm to make that "official" at the same time if possible.
> (There could be current code that assumes that
This is good work and looks to be ready.
(I could quibble about the extensibility model or the inclusion of the basic
check mode, but both are well specified.)
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, at 07:03, Sean Turner wrote:
> This email starts the 2nd working group last call for "Return
> Routability Check
