Re: [TLS] Bikeshedding ECHO

I rather prefer ECHO.

-Ekr

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:31 AM Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> wrote:

> +1 to "ETCH"
>
> Any objections to that or concerns with that?
> (Agreed it would be good to finalize this ASAP.)
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
> 40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> ECHO is more fun to say, but I do see how it can be confusing (sounding
>> like some sort of ping) when out of the context of TLS.
>>
>> To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”..
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tommy
>>
>> > On May 7, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Erik raises some compelling reasons to change the name from ECHO to...
>> something else less confusing or misleading [1]. Candidates from the PR
>> include ETCH (Encrypted TLS Client Hello), ECH, and EHELLO. Since the
>> HTTPSSVC draft aims for WGLC before IETF 108, it would be good if we got
>> this bikeshedding out of the way now. To that end, if you have an opinion
>> on the name and whether or not we should change it, please share it!
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Chris (no hat)
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/232
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TLS mailing list
>> > TLS@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> TLS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>