Sorry, I had meant to reply to this but forgot... On 13/02/2020 21:34, Nick Sullivan wrote: > Hi Justice, > > Thanks for reaching out and welcome. At this point, another implementation > of draft-02 wouldn't hurt, but it also likely won't contribute much to the > development process for this document. We've learned what we can from -02 > and the upcoming draft version will likely be radically different from the > existing published version, so you likely won't be able to re-use much > code. If it's possible for your schedule I recommend waiting or exploring > questions like how applications with different TLS stacks can get access to > ESNI records if they're fetched system-wide.
I agree with Nick. If you did want to play with draft-02 code on android, then you could see if my fork of openssl [1] works. It has support for drafts -02 to -04. There is a CI setup that builds it for android but it hasn't really been tested ever. Happy to help if that was of interest. Cheers, S. [1] https://github.com/sftcd/openssl/ > > Nick > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:30 AM Justice Parham <justking...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello tlsWG, >> >> First I would like to introduce myself to you. My name is Justice Parham >> (github mrsylerpowers) a current Senior Undergraduate Student at North >> Carolina A&T State University. As my senior project I decided to create a >> android system wide implementation of the ESNI Draft. I am planning on >> implementing draft-ietf-tls-esni-02 because this is the version that >> cloudflare currently has published on their servers. I am planning on >> upgrading to newer versions of ESNI as more implementations come out on the >> server side >> >> My question to everyone is if creating this implementation will hurt or >> help this document? I would really like for this to be a standard that is >> used everywhere in every browser and in every computer. But I understand >> draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption >> 3.4 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-09#section-3.4>'s >> importance about not sticking out. Is there a time where vendors all plan >> to implement or do you think this is a perfect time to create this? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
