On 3/13/24 14:51, Watson Ladd wrote:
The reason the public_name exists is so that the connections can all
have the same SNI field. Since we can't do what ESNI did, there must
be something there and it should all be the same.

Could you elaborate a bit on this? Sorry I'm unfamiliar with some design decisions, but why connections all need to have the same SNI field instead of just excluding it altogether, i.e. what ESNI did?

I'm not sure what problem you want us to solve here. In the case of
server offering a single domain, an attacker can determine that
connections to that domain go to the server and cheaply block based on
IP. As a result the threat model is one of distinguishing between
connections to two different inner names.

An IP can be cheaply recycled as well, for instance restarting a VPS on a cloud provider. Furthermore, IP based blocking may even be discouraged at a higher level, for the exact reason that IPs can change pretty easily. As an operator, I might be able to migrate my hosting to a new server provider (and hence IP) trivially, but informing my users of a domain change is much harder.

DNS does not propagate atomically with webserver configuration
changes. It's thus necessary to deal with mismatches.
While this is true, if there is a configuration mismatch (and hence ECH cannot work), why is the decision made for the server to transparently "downgrade" it to non-ECH, instead of sending some kind of alert that signifies the client to retry without ECH?

Regards,

Raghu Saxena

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xA1E21ED06A67D28A.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to