On 8/4/2017 10:39 AM, Adam Langley wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com > <mailto:s...@sn3rd.com>> 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 review/comment on > the draft before 20170818. If you object to its adoption, please > let us know why. > > > Section two of the draft discusses the design space, which is to be > welcomed, but also MUST/MUST NOTs sections of that design space. While > I generally agree with its opinions, it's confused about whether it's > a technical document or a policy document. If it decides to be a > policy document, then I'm unconvinced of its utility. 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, why not.
> > 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 during the WG process, there's a big gap between the two ideas > and I'd support one but not the other. > My goal was to list the current state of solutions. The document could be split with different drafts presenting different solutions, but I believe there is value in an attempt at unification. -- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
