Ugh, sorry everyone. I both forgot that this other draft (draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech) existed and that we had already decided to put the code point in draft. Even better, as you say, that draft already has the codepoint request and was adopted. I closed this PR.
Ben, Mike, Erik: can you please submit the WG version of this document? The I-D expired on September 12. Thanks, and apologies again for any confusion. Best, Chris > On Sep 21, 2023, at 12:11 PM, David Benjamin <david...@chromium.org> wrote: > > 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=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > 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 >> TLS@ietf.org <mailto:TLS@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
