[TLS] Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-07: (with COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-07: 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-svcb-ech/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to thank Linda Dunbar for her OPSDIR review. In particular, she brings
up this point in her review:

>> Additionally, diagnosing ECH failures can be difficult due to the lack of
>> fallback and visibility. The draft should recommend logging and monitoring
>> strategies to help operators detect misconfigurations.

> I don't believe we have any relevant recommendations for logging or
monitoring.  Any such logging would likely not be related to the DNS records,
so those recommendations would be in draft-ietf-tls-esni or a later draft.

I can understand Linda's concern. This document in particular, talks about how
the client learns ECH configuration for the server and what its behavior should
be given the ECH configuration. Implementors will therefore be looking at this
document and not a later draft on what information should be logged. Is there
no guidance that this document can provide in that regard?