+1 to "ETCH" Any objections to that or concerns with that? (Agreed it would be good to finalize this ASAP.)
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly= 40apple....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
