Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-esni-24: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-esni/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I've previously reviewed this document and have very few additional comments; these comments can be incorporated or ignored at the authors' and responsible AD's discretion. 6.1.8: "has been forced to change" imputes external events that aren't relevant to the protocol. The server's configuration may have changed since the client received the retry configs; the client doesn't need to speculate on why. 10.9 notes that there's no collision between ECH acceptance (in 1.3) and downgrade protection (in <1.3) because of the version scoping. It's worth noting, however, that this forecloses using the same approach to guard against downgrades to 1.3 from future TLS versions. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
