Re: [TLS] [ECH] Reverting the config ID change

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

I find the language around "optional" configuration identifiers confusing
here.  Both of these proposals require ECHConfig to specify an identifier,
and both of them require the client to transmit one, so it doesn't seem
very "optional".  I think the point is that special case usage profiles are
permitted in which the client ignores the indicated ID and substitutes a
different one.  Given that that is arranged by mutual agreement outside of
the protocol, I'm not sure why it needs to be mentioned in the draft, but
if it's going to be included, I hope we can find a clearer presentation.

Substantively, this seems fine to me..

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:44 AM Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On the heels of this change, here's another PR that I'd folks to weigh in
> on:
>
>    https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/381
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021, at 2:29 PM, Christopher Wood wrote:
> > We previously had a server-selected label for the ECHConfig, but that
> > has since been replaced with a client-computed identifier. There are a
> > couple of problems with this change in practice (see [1]), so the
> > following PR proposes reverting back to the old behavior:
> >
> >    https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/376
> >
> > There is a separate issue [2] regarding the length of this identifier,
> > but we can address that separately.
> >
> > Please have a look at the PR and provide feedback. We'd like to merge
> > this soon.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/375
> > [2] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/379
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>