Return-Path: X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17CA3A0F3A for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 15:39:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EryTr8EuYF_M for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0EB23A0B4F for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id x73so2684017lfa.2 for ; Fri, 08 May 2020 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KQd8p0wpIRY6f+K3ygIyrLsfJHnG7ErwXz1/4R4UufE=; b=CYVlLgJROwdiOsCUJsMxbgQWQ9Z8ZR6piBshlcWXMu89oQylgNw+5rc3knyQxERONW PzBY1dXqIGd3mYefg5RXnDBlGEojwV9cc2NWbbrjHJPqQC92TtWdjjnEWMHrlIRZAbxO UfsvimUNs8rFH/vTwJrYR5oLGQVmP3WTkbKT+tg4piX8lMu37YG8gGddTlVL6AorM4O4 vdVmTs9zCMky0NkKg0rTip1HZIwan1yzFPzaBoxFqvWGBAWEojiMIN6atSlBcoJEjduS 1rEVAt8snMHssG3ev2L3Ug6fiLX/+ZwHEs4WiJuKMY7LBdkdtCSUdCI1vvU54FTgDXS5 +irw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KQd8p0wpIRY6f+K3ygIyrLsfJHnG7ErwXz1/4R4UufE=; b=JmSiTCwQ87zWkveVDzvYMzaP0w8rOgMhPcy7GEdt9Gbg0N5/hXkm7+fsU2F2ibzNsY ctAKjclzEIb/9pVOMVzsH29+uPAvulcHB208EFQsNu2W4DKYslgTTNeW0Rwh3tJ7HiB5 W9v7Fjleufv5BQmABiB/jjHHahhTsOz5Z97Fzmn5ukcrtbjiisuXPwaGUjW0v5p3ATGM oB114gpE3vTUH3e18kdck1fUg+8b33Gy+ltBE6w385AX07Q+3B9GAZVg708FFB8QMe9L G+n+O9SFCbcvLWrmh27YyFDpDbg4CZvuz6xHClaSQJbjo4NXu8mbu09mzXFPlS5zbHys T/YA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313qSY7r0hd44Ud4ELBAv4eR/7S0qEqPydgSm5BeQ5Ky9TLVUvx naPtzoH5iwibPo1ZBvmZeKD3lVivrNUK4mIwzVXyKA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzUW+5Wns4qphivWE0Bc2vKP8WB72cJWrO16kC1sVUOzw1vdv0uLyO/zIIGPV7VIYtHJG5AA6tYugjUG8wzTM= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:55a6:: with SMTP id y6mr3272970lfg.14.1588977549948; Fri, 08 May 2020 15:39:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 15:38:33 -0700 Message-ID: To: Erik Nygren Cc: Tommy Pauly , "TLS@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006bcbe305a52aaa2f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [TLS] Bikeshedding ECHO X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 22:39:14 -0000 --0000000000006bcbe305a52aaa2f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I rather prefer ECHO. -Ekr On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:31 AM Erik Nygren 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 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=E2=80=99d have a minor preference for =E2=80=9CETCH=E2=80= =9D.. >> >> Thanks, >> Tommy >> >> > On May 7, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Christopher Wood >> 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 opinio= n >> 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 > --0000000000006bcbe305a52aaa2f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I rather prefer ECHO.

-E= kr


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?=C2=A0
(Agreed it would be good to finali= ze this ASAP.)

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly <tpau= ly=3D40appl= e.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
ECHO is more fun to say, but I do see how it can be con= fusing (sounding like some sort of ping) when out of the context of TLS.
To that end, I=E2=80=99d have a minor preference for =E2=80=9CETCH=E2=80=9D= ..

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 in= clude ETCH (Encrypted TLS Client Hello), ECH, and EHELLO. Since the HTTPSSV= C draft aims for WGLC before IETF 108, it would be good if we got this bike= shedding out of the way now. To that end, if you have an opinion on the nam= e 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
--0000000000006bcbe305a52aaa2f--