Sorry - I have one more I wanted to raise as an issue. Will do that tomorrow and send a mail,
Cheers, S. On 24/04/2020 00:30, Christopher Wood wrote: > In preparation for next week's virtual interim session on ECHO, I'd like to > draw your attention to the following issues and PRs we'll be discussing. > > First, there's a PR up for padding > [https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/209]. This PR describes a > padding algorithm for clients that roughly works as follows. Clients compute > the amount of ClientHelloInner padding based on padding for each inner CH > extension. Some extensions might take server hints as input to this > computation. In our case, we only have one such extension and hint: the SNI > and ECHOConfig.max_name_len. Once done, round the total padding to the > nearest 32B value. It also suggests that other handshake messages should be > padded, yet elides details. (We previously didn't specify padding for > anything beyond the CH message, so this isn't a change.) > > Is this PR ready to go? If not, why not? What would you change, and why? > (Concrete suggestions are highly encouraged!) Note also that this is > currently only a recommended padding algorithm. Implementations are therefore > free to do what they wish. Is this acceptable? Do we need to be more > prescriptive? Food for thought! > > After that PR, there's a pile of issues that need attention and discussion. > Please have a look at the list below and comment on whether you think they're > worth addressing. > > - ECHOConfigContents.extensions > [https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/217] > - ECHOConfig vs HTTPSSVC > [https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/219, > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/216] > - GREASE indistinguishability > [https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/177] > - HPKE code points [https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/218] > - Tunnel TLS 1.2 and below > [https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/214] > > These are the last major outstanding issues against the document. I hope we > can move forward after we resolve them, one way or another. > > Thanks, > Chris (no hat) > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
