Hiya,
I'm processing maintainer comments as I try get ECH code upstreamed
and wanna check a thing. Let's say the following happens:
1. Client send CH including real ECH attempt
2. Server responds with HRR including good ECH acceptance signal
3. Client sends 2nd-CH with new group and another ECH
Hello Nick, folks,
I only had the chance to look at the draft and the presentation during
IETF, but I actually like this idea.
To address the concern of outer SNI becoming an observation vector, the
presentation suggested that clients should use "any choice of valid DNS
names."
But as some point
Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Given that this document, once published as an RFC, places normative
restrictions on IETF work, it seems odd to list it as "Informational"?
Wouldn't BCP be a better status for it?
During the long bleak winter where this review sat answered :), we did change
it to STD.
Hiya,
On 22/03/2025 23:20, David Benjamin wrote:
To that end, the proposed protocol change wouldn't work in the first place.
It wasn't a proposed change, I was just checking if some corner-case
code was right or wrong, and as you point out above, it's wrong, or
rather, even if that code copi
