How do we want to handle the rest of draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech? It got WG adoption in May, but I don't think anything's happened with it since. (Unless we decided something and I forgot?) In particular, the section on switching to SVCB-reliant mode is important for a client: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech-00.html#section-4.1
Whether it's the same document or a separate one, I think the SVCB codepoint should be allocated in the same document that discusses how to use the SVCB codepoint. Since there's movement towards putting it in the ECH one and no movement on draft-sbn, just folding it all in and making one document is tempting... On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:01 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz= [email protected]> wrote: > > > > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/553 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/553__;!!GjvTz_vk!VZuHgIUXt4WF6EIZiClCq4J_VaGK5-vIjJDMFd0aqCJ8ybe6ffmkEIH3NQG8YHTLN6qilvgz-_tc$> > > > > > > Looks good to me. > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
