Hi, Stephen, I actually has some trouble to understand your point.
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 08:58, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Factually, many people do deploy a web server hosted as a > VPS by a small hoster, so could benefit from ECH, to some > extent. I know in the small part of the world where I live > (.ie) there are dozens of such hosters who run probably tens > of thousands of web sites. ISTM making accesses to those > less easily distinguished from one another brings potential > benefits. My point there is some people run their website without intermediary proxy. They still deserve the protection of ECH. So what is you point here? > I think you're wrong to only consider there being two cases > of interest. People are fairly inventive in how they use new > tools like ECH. But time will tell I guess. I have said there are two cases, but has not stated there are only two cases. The current design of ECH requires an intermediary proxy with dedicated domain name and SSL certificate to work. And I think it is huge burden for indie website. So again, what is your point here? Thanks. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
