On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, at 06:52, Ben Schwartz wrote: > Basically, I think this draft should probably either name the scope or > be specific to SVCB, to avoid cases where the scope is ambiguous. > Naming the scope, and providing a scope identifier meaning "IP and port > number", would often be sufficient for secure QUIC upgrade without > SVCB, at the cost of some conceptual complexity.
It took me a while to think this through. tl;dr, I agree with your conclusion. Written up in a longer form as an issue: https://github.com/martinthomson/snip/issues/1 _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
