+1 to this plan. Once the ECH content is removed from this draft, the authors of draft-ietf-tls-esni will work to incorporate it there as necessary.
Best, Chris > On Feb 23, 2023, at 12:57 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Warren for chasing all this process. > > Tim > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:54 PM Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >> Instead of just having all of these document stuck indefinitely, I'm >> proposing that we: >> 1: Ask the RFC Editor to return the document to the IESG & IETF[1]. >> 2: I return it to the WG. >> 3: The authors remove the bits that rely on ESNI >> 4: The document progresses "normally" - it gets another WGLC, IETF LC, IESG >> Eval, etc. Hopefully this can be expedited - it's already gone though all of >> these steps once, and the updated document would be very similar to the >> original. >> >> 5: If / when tls-esni is published, the svcb-https authors submit a -bis >> (while will likely just be 'git checkout <current_version>'), and we >> progress this just like any other WG document. >> >> I've discussed this with the authors of the documents, the DNSOP and TLS >> chairs, the relevant ADs and the full IESG. >> >> However, before doing all this, I'd like to confirm that the WG doesn't >> object to the plan…. > > This sounds like a good plan to me. > > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
