Hiya,
As is probably obvious I don't agree with this. But I can raise
it when the draft gets to IETF LC, so we don't need to bang on
about it.
On 26/01/2019 17:40, John R Levine wrote:
> After reading all the discussion I posted an -02 which takes out all
> mention of ESNI. Here's why.
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2019, at 12:40 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>
> After reading all the discussion I posted an -02 which takes out all mention
> of ESNI. Here's why.
>
> More substantively, I would be surprised if any MTA ever implements ESNI
> because it makes no sense for mail. On the web,
After reading all the discussion I posted an -02 which takes out all
mention of ESNI. Here's why.
The most important issue is process. ESNI is currently described only in
an early I-D which will not turn into an RFC for a long time. If I
reference it, this draft will be stuck behind ESNI,
