Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

2017-08-05 Thread Christian Huitema
On 8/5/2017 9:44 AM, Adam Langley wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Christian Huitema > wrote: > > Clearly, Section 2 could be turned into some kind of 'problem > statement" draft. I personally don't like splitting problem > statement and proposed s

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption

2017-08-05 Thread Adam Langley
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > Clearly, Section 2 could be turned into some kind of 'problem statement" > draft. I personally don't like splitting problem statement and proposed > solution in separate documents, but if that's the group consensus, why not. > I don't thi

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-05 Thread Martin Thomson
On 5 August 2017 at 06:07, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > It is currently before 20170818, and I support adoption of this draft and am > willing to review it as it progresses. > > I do agree with Ilari that limiting the ciphertext size seems to make more > sense, but of course we can discuss that post ad

Re: [TLS] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-huitema-tls-sni-encryption-00.txt

2017-08-05 Thread Martin Thomson
On 5 August 2017 at 01:30, Brian Sniffen wrote: > ## Don't stand out > > I think the requirement that the browser check the CT log and perform > DNSSEC in 3.2 is likely to violate the don't-stand-out requirement, as I > don't expect most browsers to do that most times. Am I missing > something?