Moin! On 23 Feb 2023, at 18:39, Warren Kumari 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….
I agree with this plan and as SVCB is already widely deployed and we need an RFC to point to and not a draft to get people not doing stupid things with it. So long -Ralf ——- Ralf Weber _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
