I had one comment earlier that seems to have been missed [0].
Basically I was wondering if it may be useful to use stronger language in the draft to indicate a client MUST use Port Prefix Naming when looking up the SVCB record.
Regards, Raghu Saxena [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ynRkX60dGq-ofmSW4POhppQcgkY/ On 6/13/24 2:10 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
This email starts the working group last call for "Bootstrapping TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS Service Bindings” I-D, located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech/ The WG Last Call will end 26 June 2024 @ 2359 UTC. Please review the I-D and submit issues and pull requests via the GitHub repository that can be found at: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech Alternatively, you can also send your comments to tls@ietf.org. Thanks, spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
OpenPGP_0xA1E21ED06A67D28A.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
