On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:45 AM Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:24 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:15 AM Stephen Farrell < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 22/10/2019 19:10, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>> > Uh,why? > >>> > >>> Openness, transparency, enabling the WG to make decisions on > >>> the list. > >> > >> > >> The WG has the chance to make decisions on the list *in response to* > proposals in the draft. At this stage of the draft development, I don't > think it's problematic for authors to put proposals in a draft with the > understanding that they are proposals.. Eventually... > > > > > > This seems fine to me, fwiw. It was a little weird to hear about the > decision in this way, but that kind of thing is always happening behind the > scenes. :) > > > > It seems to me that the client is in the best position to set the > padding, so I’m not sure why there is anything in the DNS record. > > Strongly disagree. If one IP address hosts two domains, short.example > and longlonglonglonglonglonglonglong.example, a client of > short.example has no SNI privacy unless they pad up to the length of > the longer name. The client can't know to do this unless the DNS > record says so. Well, I am not sure we are disagreeing so strongly. I want to pad everything up to 260 since the ClientHello will still fit in one packet. I think it would be ok to send a minimum length in the DNS record. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
