Moving the ECH/ESNI bits from draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https to draft-ietf-tls-esni seems to be the simplest option by far here. I strongly support that. David
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:38 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > On Feb 23, 2023, at 10:14 AM, Benjamin Schwartz <i...@bemasc.net> wrote: > > > > I'm OK with this, although personally I'm happy to just wait for ECH. I > had hoped for a simpler solution (like marking SVCB's dependency on ECH as > Informative), but I can understand if the IESG thinks there's no other way. > > draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https has MUST-level requirements for how to handle > ECH, so it isn't really possible to mark the dependency as informational. > > > If we are chopping the ECH parts out of SVCB, I would prefer to publish > them later as a separate document, rather than stuffing them into ECH or > opening a SVCB-bis. I think that will be clearer for readers and will > minimize further delays. > > Yes, an ecb-in-svcb document would be much better than a -bis, unless > there are significant other changes to make in the -bis. > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > 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
