If we must change it, let's do ECH, as the T seems entirely superfluous. After all, it's not TSNI.
-Ekr On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:32 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > I am glad this bikeshed was shorter than I expected. Because most people > didn’t have a strong preference and there might be some (possibly small) > chance of confusion, it seems like we should change the name to ETCH > (Encrypted TLS Client Hello). > > spt > > > On May 7, 2020, at 18:52, 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
