On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, at 7:27 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > * we refactored the HTTPSSVC draft to make it more general. The hope is that > * it could be an alternative (or replace the need) for a distinct ESNI > record. > > I am strongly opposed to two ways of doing the same thing. I will be > taking a close look at this, but I hope that the folks heavily involved > with ESNI see what changes, if any, need to be made to use this.
Indeed! We are watching this with interest. I also prefer a single way of doing things. :-) > > > * We'd like to see this adopted by the DNSOP WG. Until then, issues > and PRs can go against: https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_MikeBishop_dns-2Dalt-2Dsvc&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=tx3JL_P4GWN_yvVV7GJ3vxSQ_HrZ-KEdkfVWWtEy7rk&s=649CY0JbaYZmTqIiJlM05R9i9kMrcyYFjaPp2XnI9zk&e=> > * URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-00.txt > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_internet-2Ddrafts_draft-2Dnygren-2Ddnsop-2Dsvcb-2Dhttpssvc-2D00.txt&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=tx3JL_P4GWN_yvVV7GJ3vxSQ_HrZ-KEdkfVWWtEy7rk&s=z4EtrFtjyct4U90Ybv0Pp0V20JFDjMD0YjMrWj2_YkM&e=> > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
