On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 8:04 PM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hiya, > > On 30/07/2019 00:58, David Benjamin wrote: > > > > [*] I filed https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/177 last > > week with a sketch of an idea. Steven or I should hopefully have a more > > concrete PR later. > > Working from there seems like a good path. That said > I don't see that that says how an ESNI-aware but not > ESNI-configured server ought behave. And it seems a > bit complicated, although I agree a 50:50 split is as > or more arbitrary. > I think either of "do nothing and act like you are ESNI-unaware" or "add some padding to EncryptedExtensions so you have room to be ESNI-configured" is reasonable. Though, yeah, the draft should talk about this a bit. I think the GREASE stuff turned out to have a lot more details to work out than my original attempt anticipated. :-) > PS: I'll note that I didn't know that PR existed as it > hadn't hit the mailing list and I rarely login to the > github web UI and that this isn't the first time I've > had that experience. I don't blame anyone but there's > clearly a bit of process stuff not quite working well > here. I think people raising non-editorial PRs should > bring those to the list. > Apologies. I filed that during the meeting mostly so I wouldn't forget and so Chris would have something to link to in his slides. The intent was to write up an actual PR later which would certainly be sent to the list for discussion. David
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
