On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 4:58 PM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hiya, > > On 24/08/2022 00:39, 涛叔 wrote: > > It may be right for a common cloud platform, but what about indie > > server? Every site who need ECH have to deploy an addition outer > > domain to*protect* the inner one. But these indie servers can not > > share a common outer domain, so the have to use some distinct one who > > doe one-to-one respond the inner one. > I don't believe that is the case. A small hoster can choose a > "public_name" and use that for customers. An enterprise of > whatever size can choose a "public_name" like example.com and > then use that and ECH to cover accesses to other internal names like > accounts.example.com or hr.example.com. I know > there are a bunch of people who think by far the main value > of ECH relates to CDNs, and they may be correct, but I tend > to think the above approaches also have value. > Maybe the other important point here is that ECH is not worse in any use case. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd like to read about it. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
