I actually already merged it :)
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:48 PM Christopher Wood
wrote:
> To make it official, here's a PR making that change:
>
>https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/236
>
> Please have a look. I'll merge in the next day or so.
>
> Thanks!
> Chris (no hat)
>
>
To make it official, here's a PR making that change:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/236
Please have a look. I'll merge in the next day or so.
Thanks!
Chris (no hat)
On Thu, May 21, 2020, at 8:58 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
> Okay let’s call this done! ECH it is.
>
> spt
>
>
On 5/21/20 11:52 AM, Erik Nygren wrote:
Are there any objections to "ECH" or should we just go with that?
I have no objection, but would benefit from consensus on whether it
(ECH) is an initialism or acronym. My opinion is that it is best as an
initialism (as is, e.g., TLS).
Okay let’s call this done! ECH it is.
spt
Sent from my iPhone
>> On May 21, 2020, at 11:53, Erik Nygren wrote:
>
> Are there any objections to "ECH" or should we just go with that?
> (I'd like to update the parameter name in SRVB/HTTPSSVC accordingly based on
> what gets decided.)
>
>
>>
Are there any objections to "ECH" or should we just go with that?
(I'd like to update the parameter name in SRVB/HTTPSSVC accordingly based
on what gets decided.)
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:37 PM Tommy Pauly wrote:
> ECH is good. Go for it!
>
> Tommy
>
> On May 20, 2020, at 11:34 AM, Erik
ECH is good. Go for it!
Tommy
> On May 20, 2020, at 11:34 AM, Erik Nygren wrote:
>
>
>
> ECH works for me. (I really don't care between ECH and ETCH and thing both
> are fine.)
>
> Erik
>
>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:20 PM Christopher Wood
>> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020, at
ECH works for me. (I really don't care between ECH and ETCH and thing both
are fine.)
Erik
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:20 PM Christopher Wood
wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
> > As a data point, I was fairly confused when ECHO came up in
> > conversation,
On Tue, May 19, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
> As a data point, I was fairly confused when ECHO came up in
> conversation, and had to stop to ask what it was. I think I would have
> had a better chance of figuring it out from context or search if it
> were called ECH, but don't
As a data point, I was fairly confused when ECHO came up in conversation, and
had to stop to ask what it was. I think I would have had a better chance of
figuring it out from context or search if it were called ECH, but don't have a
strong preference for any specific name.
ECH does have a
If we must change it, let's do ECH, as the T seems entirely superfluous.
After all, it's not TSNI.
-Ekr
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:32 AM Sean Turner wrote:
> I am glad this bikeshed was shorter than I expected. Because most people
> didn’t have a strong preference and there might be some
I am glad this bikeshed was shorter than I expected. Because most people didn’t
have a strong preference and there might be some (possibly small) chance of
confusion, it seems like we should change the name to ETCH (Encrypted TLS
Client Hello).
spt
> On May 7, 2020, at 18:52, Christopher Wood
I agree that it’s misleading and potentially confusing to newcomers.
ETCH sounds like a good alternative.
> On May 11, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Nick Harper
> wrote:
>
> I see how the name ECHO can be confusing and support renaming it. All of the
> proposed replacement names are fine with me.
>
>
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:10 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:51:00PM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:43 PM Benjamin Kaduk > 40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > >
Hi Rob,
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:51:00PM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:43 PM Benjamin Kaduk 40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > I rather prefer ECHO.
> >
> > Do you have some arguments to dispel
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:43 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I rather prefer ECHO.
>
> Do you have some arguments to dispel the concerns about confusion, other
> than
> your personal preference?
>
There's no confusion. I couldn't
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I rather prefer ECHO.
Do you have some arguments to dispel the concerns about confusion, other than
your personal preference?
-Ben
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
I rather prefer ECHO.
-Ekr
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:31 AM Erik Nygren wrote:
> +1 to "ETCH"
>
> Any objections to that or concerns with that?
> (Agreed it would be good to finalize this ASAP.)
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly 40apple@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> ECHO is
+1 to "ETCH"
Any objections to that or concerns with that?
(Agreed it would be good to finalize this ASAP.)
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly wrote:
> ECHO is more fun to say, but I do see how it can be confusing (sounding
> like some sort of ping) when out of the context of TLS.
>
>
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:00 PM Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
> > On May 7, 2020, at 19:03, Tommy Pauly
> wrote:
> >
> > To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”.
>
> If we could just work an “a" and “sketch” into the name … I am all in.
>
> More seriously, let’s knock this decision out by
> On May 7, 2020, at 19:03, Tommy Pauly
> wrote:
>
> To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”.
If we could just work an “a" and “sketch” into the name … I am all in.
More seriously, let’s knock this decision out by end of next week, i.e., the
15th.
spt
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 03:52:43PM -0700, Christopher Wood wrote:
> Erik raises some compelling reasons to change the name from ECHO to...
> something else less confusing or misleading [1]. Candidates from the
> PR include ETCH (Encrypted TLS Client Hello), ECH, and EHELLO. Since
> the HTTPSSVC
+1 on sooner rather than later
tim
terrible at picking colors
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:06 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 07/05/2020 23:52, Christopher Wood wrote:
> > Erik raises some compelling reasons to change the name from ECHO
> > to... something else less confusing or misleading [1].
Agree with Tommy, but don't care all that much if another gets consensus.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
'ELLO
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly
wrote:
>
> ECHO is more fun to say, but I do see how it can be confusing (sounding like
> some sort of ping) when out of the context of TLS.
>
> To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”.
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy
>
> > On May 7, 2020, at
On 07/05/2020 23:52, Christopher Wood wrote:
> Erik raises some compelling reasons to change the name from ECHO
> to... something else less confusing or misleading [1]. Candidates
> from the PR include ETCH (Encrypted TLS Client Hello), ECH, and
> EHELLO. Since the HTTPSSVC draft aims for WGLC
ECHO is more fun to say, but I do see how it can be confusing (sounding like
some sort of ping) when out of the context of TLS.
To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”.
Thanks,
Tommy
> On May 7, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Christopher Wood wrote:
>
> Erik raises some compelling reasons to
Erik raises some compelling reasons to change the name from ECHO to...
something else less confusing or misleading [1]. Candidates from the PR include
ETCH (Encrypted TLS Client Hello), ECH, and EHELLO. Since the HTTPSSVC draft
aims for WGLC before IETF 108, it would be good if we got this
27 matches
Mail list logo
