Hi Joe, Pre-agenda bashing question for chairs and authors of the ESNI/ECHO draft...
I'd like to try again to suggest simplifications for ECHOConfig (e.g. no extensions, just one public key per RR VALUE etc.) and perhaps also some more rules constraining inner/outer CH variances. How would you prefer those be raised? As issues in GH or threads on the list and would you rather I try group 'em as much as possible or make each issue as fine-grained as possible? Optimistically, this meeting might be the one where we mostly tie this stuff down, so I hope it's ok that some of these issues have been raised before in one form or another. The move from ESNI->ECHO and to HTTPSSVC and the goal to get to WGLC I think justifies re-checking if we really need the current level of (what I claim is too much:-) complexity in ECHO. Ta, S. On 03/04/2020 18:15, Joseph Salowey wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:54 PM Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > >> The chairs think it would be good to schedule a virtual TLS interim >> focused on ECHO and also have a readout from the PSK design team. We have >> some dates that the IESG has recommended for us. The proposal is: >> >> 1900 - 2100 UTC April 27 >> >> Please use the following form to let us know if you can attend: >> >> https://forms.gle/Wkk7dsx9q1ipmi2B9 >> >> > [Joe] Of the 26 responses only 1 indicated that the time did not work so we > are moving forward with requesting this meeting time. More details will > follow once the meeting is scheduled. > > >> Thanks, >> >> Chris, Joe, and Sean >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
