On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Adam Langley <a...@imperialviolet.org> wrote:
> If it wants to be a technical document, then the draft includes two very > different designs with a note saying that one will be chosen at some point. > So which are we talking about adopting? While drafts evolve during the WG > process, there's a big gap between the two ideas and I'd support one but > not the other. > The tunneling mechanism described in Section 4.1 seems useful (at least to me) for more things than encrypted SNI, such as being able to use different TLS extensions for the frontend load balancer versus a backend service, while still eventually negotiating an end-to-end encrypted session with the backend service. I wonder if the draft should be framed around the TLS-in-TLS tunneling mechanism, with encrypted SNI as a potential use case. -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
