Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

The working has expressed consensus to work on the problem of SNI encryption. More work is needed to determine the technical approach to SNI encryption. The chairs believe there is enough interest and energy to adopt this draft and continue work within the working group instead of asking the

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On 17/08/17 05:18, Martin Thomson wrote: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7858 > > I hear that there are even implementations and deployments. Yes, I used the resolver doing this at the last IETF meeting. It worked. Not "just worked," but pretty good. > > It's certainly time to have the

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] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

> it's odd to adopt the draft without choosing which of the designs we're > adopting. On the contrary, I think it's ridiculous for the WG to pick one design without discussion. I really look forward to AGL's comments on each ___ TLS mailing list

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On 8/5/2017 9:44 AM, Adam Langley wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Christian Huitema > wrote: > > Clearly, Section 2 could be turned into some kind of 'problem > statement" draft. I personally don't like splitting problem >

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > Clearly, Section 2 could be turned into some kind of 'problem statement" > draft. I personally don't like splitting problem statement and proposed > solution in separate documents, but if that's the group consensus,

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On Aug 4, 2017 9:22 AM, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" wrote: On Fri 2017-08-04 08:50:33 -0400, 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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On 8/4/2017 10:39 AM, Adam Langley wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:50 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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Adam Langley > wrote: > >> If it wants to be a technical document, then the draft includes two very >> different designs with a note saying that one will be chosen

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Adam Langley wrote: > If it wants to be a technical document, then the draft includes two very > different designs with a note saying that one will be chosen at some point. > So which are we talking about adopting? While drafts evolve

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:50 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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

Sean Turner writes: > 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 review/comment

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

I also support adoption, have reviewed it, and will continue to do so. Best, Chris On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Ben Schwartz wrote: > I support adoption and have reviewed the draft. > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Stephen Farrell > wrote:

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On 04/08/17 14:21, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Fri 2017-08-04 08:50:33 -0400, 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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

On Fri 2017-08-04 08:50:33 -0400, 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