ECHO is more fun to say, but I do see how it can be confusing (sounding like some sort of ping) when out of the context of TLS.
To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”. Thanks, Tommy > On May 7, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Christopher Wood <c...@heapingbits.net> wrote: > > Erik raises some compelling reasons to change the name from ECHO to... > something else less confusing or misleading [1]. Candidates from the PR > include ETCH (Encrypted TLS Client Hello), ECH, and EHELLO. Since the > HTTPSSVC draft aims for WGLC before IETF 108, it would be good if we got this > bikeshedding out of the way now. To that end, if you have an opinion on the > name and whether or not we should change it, please share it! > > Thanks, > Chris (no hat) > > [1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/232 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
