Re: [TLS] Editorial: chronological order in ECH draft

Carrick Bartle <> Thu, 24 June 2021 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10B63A1AB2 for <>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.849
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9dUtmlja0x4W for <>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 19:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FE4E3A1AAF for <>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 19:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1a1hai; t=1624500084; bh=kS2mQJ4EnIQssQSIZ1t0YDU+zleDBYSGY7mLg7bhODA=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=Dj0/3DRblk5gFch+6JQf4UX2NGu0e1ggM46yVf02C7PvNRSDT0ugOTkHvxWMch6ah 61Gam/5usRp3BsGLvn7SNj+AnaLDfrbQ6qd6g9/bmBCY21DpYWrIFzS3h9PPuQl0AO WgBJ5sPERT+snTa8nH3rejraPRCWt+mxeaFn8nPxS1BX+h54nJvMjt47k0+BkhUjJj 6r50E6zoGZFvbWq6duiSz5CLrBbDKUs+3nGX6hH7oW5TjczPIqsYTB2z/YI1uHxXlS KPP2+oS9j0pGtXAzcaWOSM9Nq6fj7jzkak8DIKACAOgln+hsiPYs9MQIT0mZjYACJF ZL7i4pkpFyhbg==
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54447580601; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 02:01:24 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Carrick Bartle <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 19:01:23 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: =?UTF-8?Q?vendor=3Dfsecure_engine=3D1.1.170-22c6f66c430a71ce266a39bfe25bc?= =?UTF-8?Q?2903e8d5c8f:6.0.391,18.0.790,17.0.607.475.0000000_definitions?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3D2021-06-23=5F12:2021-06-23=5F01,2021-06-23=5F12,2020-04-07?= =?UTF-8?Q?=5F01_signatures=3D0?=
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2106240010
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Editorial: chronological order in ECH draft
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: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 02:01:30 -0000

Cool. I might leave that for a different PR, but if something along those lines seems obvious or necessary, I'll go ahead and do it.

> On Jun 23, 2021, at 4:37 PM, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
> Whatever you can do to improve the readability of this document would be greatly appreciated.  It's a complicated design and I always spend far too much time trying to find answers to my questions.  A better structure would be appreciated.
> I do find that questions aren't always about behaviour.  They are also about protocol elements, and those a scattered piecemeal throughout.  So I would be disappointed if any restructuring were limited to just getting the time sequence straightened out.
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, at 09:04, Carrick Bartle wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm bringing to 
>> the list since it looks like we're (hopefully) getting close to the end 
>> game with ECH.
>> The ECH draft is currently organized such that it describes all client 
>> behavior and then all server behavior. Personally, I find this very 
>> confusing to follow, and I'm constantly having to flip back and forth 
>> between sections (which themselves constantly refer to each other). 
>> Does anyone object to my rearranging the content to be in more of the 
>> order in which things occur rather than being divided into client and 
>> server sections? Of course, depending on how I do it, it could end up 
>> being *more* confusing, but I just wanted to see if people were opposed 
>> to it in principle.
>> Carrick
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list