We're going through AUTH48 with SVCB right now and reviewing edits from the
RFC Editor. I think there is a good question of how to handle this. Right
now it is "RESERVED (will be used for ECH)" for SvcParamKey "ech" (5) but
we also say:
New entries in this registry are subject to an Expert Revie
I don't think what we do with the registry has any bearing on whether the
codepoint is burned. There are already draft ECH deployments today, on both
the client and server side, independent of what we later put in the
registry. Rather, the ECHConfigList structure is internally versioned, so
as long
The registry already exists with the pointer to ech (5) :
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-svcb/dns-svcb.xhtml
so no action is needed to make sure it isn't allocated for something else.
(Removing it would be more effort and more problematic.)
Do we believe the draft is stable enough that
To clarify, when you say "the draft" do you mean draft-ietf-tls-esni
or draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech? draft-ietf-tls-esni doesn't actually define a
format for it in the first place. draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech does... that got
adopted, right? Is there a TLSWG version?
Messiness around the status of the draft
