Hiya, On 07/10/2019 15:37, Tim Wicinski wrote: > All > > We want to thank the authors for working on this. The chairs > feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to > resolve: > - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps > - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with current names) > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
I support adoption. If it looks like it'll be accepted by browsers for ESNI purposes, then I'll be implementing too. If the WG do adopt this, then we really have to sort out (with the TLS WG) whether or not this will be the one and only way of publishing ESNIKeys. I hope the answer will be: "yes, this is *the* way to do that" but that'd mean we'd also need to get it right for other uses of TLS with ESNI and not just HTTPS. (Should be doable though.) The main caveat for me is I don't know if it'd be worth publishing an RFC if this doesn't end up getting deployed in browsers. So getting clarity there as early as poss would be good if we can. Cheers, S. > > This call for adoption ends: 21 October 2019 > > Thanks, > tim wicinski > DNSOP co-chair > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
