Hi folks, As promised at the last IETF meeting, we're working to close out all open issues on the ECH draft so that we can move this specification forward. Most of the editorial issues have been resolved. The list that remains is non-editorial. The list is as follows:
- Handshake-level vs record-level padding: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/264 - ECH complexity: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/401 - ECH extensibility: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/427 and https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/567 - Non-HRR ECH acceptance signal: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/441 - Grease HRR acceptance signal: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/450 - Mandatory requirement for outer SNI: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/572 We previously decided to park these issues until we got some more experience implementing, deploying, and using ECH in practice. I believe we should close all of these without any action. With the ability to extend ECH, we can modify the protocol to implement all of these proposals down the road should the need arise. (Even if we didn't have the extension mechanism, we could still bump the protocol to include these changes with little effort, procedural challenges aside.) To make forward progress, please chime in on the individual issues or here. I propose we use agenda time in Prague to walk through and discuss any remaining concerns prior to issuing a brief consensus call to resolve them (either by closing them or via a PR). At that point, we will be at zero open issues and can begin WGLC. Thanks, Chris, for the editors _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
