[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06

Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 23 October 2024 16:43 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172970181389.2367291.13554500283515961596@dt-datatracker-78dc5ccf94-w8wgc>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:43:33 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: EF3U3T27VKOCDO3WP6ZTXOUT274AQP3P
CC: draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/wKlndkfM7QGQ-RM2b3APgjOzOa0>

Reviewer: Barry Leiba
Review result: Ready with Nits

Just two small comments on this straightforward document:

— Section 3 —

 Figure 1: ECH SvcParam with a public_name of "ech-sites.example.com"

The example actually encodes example.net, not example.com
[This was a test to see if we check these things, right? :-) ]

— Section 4 —

   These servers SHOULD support a protocol version that is compatible
   with ECH.

Why is this not a MUST?  What might be a reason to publish an ECH record for a
server that doesn’t support ECH?

[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-s… Barry Leiba via Datatracker
[art] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-t… Steffen Nurpmeso
[art] Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of … Eric Rescorla
[art] Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of … Ben Schwartz