Thanks for the feedback, all! > On Jun 23, 2021, at 4:50 PM, Christopher Patton > <cpatton=40cloudflare....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > +1 to new readers! I think a chronological description would be a good > starting point, though like MT, I suspect there would be rearranging to do > afterwards that would break with a strictly chronological description. > > Chris P. > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:48 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie > <mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote: > > > On 24/06/2021 00:37, Martin Thomson wrote: > > Whatever you can do to improve the readability of this document would > > be greatly appreciated. > > +1 though I have to admit I've really been mostly looking > at diffs at this stage - probably some new readers/coders > are needed, > > S. > > > It's a complicated design and I always spend > > far too much time trying to find answers to my questions. A better > > structure would be appreciated. > > > > I do find that questions aren't always about behaviour. They are > > also about protocol elements, and those a scattered piecemeal > > throughout. So I would be disappointed if any restructuring were > > limited to just getting the time sequence straightened out. > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, at 09:04, Carrick Bartle wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'm bringing > >> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/412 > >> <https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/412> to the list > >> since it looks like we're (hopefully) getting close to the end game > >> with ECH. > >> > >> The ECH draft is currently organized such that it describes all > >> client behavior and then all server behavior. Personally, I find > >> this very confusing to follow, and I'm constantly having to flip > >> back and forth between sections (which themselves constantly refer > >> to each other). Does anyone object to my rearranging the content to > >> be in more of the order in which things occur rather than being > >> divided into client and server sections? Of course, depending on > >> how I do it, it could end up being *more* confusing, but I just > >> wanted to see if people were opposed to it in principle. > >> > >> Carrick _______________________________________________ TLS mailing > >> list TLS@ietf.org <mailto:TLS@ietf.org> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list > > TLS@ietf.org <mailto:TLS@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls> > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org <mailto:TLS@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > <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
