Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

[ Top-post ] On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi there all, > > I was really hoping that it wouldn't come to this, but… > > > We approved draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https on 2022-05-22, and has been stuck > in MISREF state ever since[0], waiting on draft-ietf-tls-esni - "TLS

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

I support this plan, and am eager to see the logjam unblocked! The mechanism for how we reintroduce the ECH option for SVCB can be debated separately. I like the idea of a separate small document, but can also see it being in the TLS draft or a bis of the SVCB document. Mainly that’s a question

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

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 >

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, at 05:03, Christopher Wood wrote: > +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. Warren's proposed plan is good. I'm less sure about the various options for

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

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. If we are chopping the ECH parts out of SVCB, I would prefer to publish

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

+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 wrote: > > Thanks Warren for chasing all this process. > > Tim > > > On Thu, Feb

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

Thanks Warren for chasing all this process. Tim On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:54 PM Joe Abley wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39, 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

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39, 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 >

[DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

Hi there all, I was really hoping that it wouldn't come to this, but… We approved draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https on 2022-05-22, and has been stuck in MISREF state ever since[0], waiting on draft-ietf-tls-esni - "TLS Encrypted Client Hello" .