Hiya, Today I read over the diff between the latest ESNI/ECH version and draft-07. [1] I have the following comments:
1. The volume of discussion on github is a deterrent. (*) I can't keep up with that and coding at the same time so (being busy elsewhere) paused my coding work in the hope that the noise would fade over time. Consider this a noise- reduction plea to allow time for implementation and testing. 2. Almost all the changes seems fine but near-trivial. The move to expand/extract from hashes doesn't seem to add much. I hope there's some theory-justification for it. I don't see 3 months of significant improvement so please consider that we may have hit diminishing returns in the mega-discussion. 3. (This isn't new, but no harm repeating:-) I don't plan to adhere to the MUST send the public_name from the ECHConfig. That makes sense for a browser but for a command line tool, or similar, my conclusion is that overriding can be justified, so I treat that as a SHOULD. (I allow such an override for the openssl s_client version I've done and similarly for curl.) FWIW, I hope to now have time to resume coding. I won't have time to process the volume of mails generated by recent github discussion as well so plan to pay attention to the text, openssl code and the mailing list. I might or might not notice something significant in the githubbery, so would be happy if significant changes (if any) can be sent to the list. Cheers, S. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tls-esni.txt&url2=https://tlswg.github.io/draft-ietf-tls-esni/draft-ietf-tls-esni.txt#part-2 (*) I get mail when there are comments on that repo. I have gotten 784 since June 1 when draft-07 was published. There were also 557 github emanations related to SVCB in the same timeframe.
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
