Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On 17 August 2017 at 13:06, Tony Arcieri wrote: > SNI encryption is one of the use cases, but SNI encryption is pointless > until we have encrypted DNS. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7858 I hear that there are even implementations and deployments. It's certainly time to

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

As I expressed on a separate thread, I think tunneling TLS is a very interesting problem with many potential use cases, from SNI encryption to egress proxies to service discovery proxies (e.g. linkerd, Envoy). SNI encryption is one of the use cases, but SNI encryption is pointless until we have

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

We don't need to adopt to have the discussion. I think we definitely can have a discussion of the merits of the solutions before going to adoption On Aug 6, 2017 1:40 PM, "Salz, Rich" wrote: > it's odd to adopt the draft without choosing which of the designs we're adopting.

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On 17 August 2017 at 07:40, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I think that the WG should discuss this topic and produce a document with > it, but I am not convinced that this document, as it stands, is a good > starting point for a product of the WG. Maybe the right answer here is to

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On 08/04/2017 07:50 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > At our IETF 99 session, there was support in the room to adopt > draft-huitema-tls-sni-encryption [0]. We need to confirm this support on the > list so please let the list know whether you support adoption of the draft > and are willing to

Re: [TLS] OCSP status_request_v2 extension

On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 19:42:30 CEST Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On 08/14/2017 01:26 PM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:03:08PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote: > >> Current (21) draft references RFC 6961 in multiple places, in particular > >> > >> * Section 4.4.2: > >>