Short inline comments. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, at 23:24, Stephen Farrell wrote: > [...] > I'm not really sure how to interpret the above tbh. Was that intended > as a summary of the draft or as a synopsis of the problem space?
That's my sketch of what I think the draft should be doing. I don't know if it truly does that, for the reasons stated elsewhere. > Happy to document the validation more, but the basic idea is that the > ZF checks ECH works, and if it does, then the ZF is ok to re-publish. > If anyone has ideas on other kinds of checks that'd be sensible, be > happy to consider incorporating those. >From my perspective, I'm looking to understand first what the ZK is expected >to be responsible for, at the layer you describe here. Then I would also like >to see a description of how it might achieve that more concretely. You get >most of the way there, I think, but it needs to be a bit more thorough. >> Titles are not sentences. Lose the period. > > Where? (Sorry, not sure, but the RFC editor will fix anyway > so no worries.) The title of the document. > Given all the above, it's probably fine if you wait 'till there's a > -05 done before we chat more, (assuming you have time), but happy to > discuss via email in the meantime too of course. I look forward to it. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
