[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-wkech-11 (Ends 2025-11-25)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

- replying to my own message

Hi! As noted @ our IETF 124 session, the plan was/is to park this document until we gather implementation experience after the WGLC. I will move the I-D to the “Waiting for Implementation” state. Once we get some experience, we will redo the WGLC.

spt

> On Nov 24, 2025, at 09:20, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> A final reminder that this WGLC ends tomorrow.
> 
> spt
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2025, at 11:00, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Another reminder that this is still on-going.
>> 
>> spt
>> 
>>> On Nov 13, 2025, at 19:25, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just a reminder that this is still on-going.
>>> 
>>> spt
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 4, 2025, at 23:33, Sean Turner via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-wkech-11 (Ends 2025-11-25)
>>>> 
>>>> This message starts a 3-week WG Last Call for this document.
>>>> 
>>>> Abstract:
>>>> We define a well-known URI at which an HTTP origin can inform an
>>>> authoritative DNS server, or other interested parties, about its
>>>> Service Bindings.  Service binding data can include Encrypted
>>>> ClientHello (ECH) configurations, that may change frequently.  This
>>>> allows the HTTP origin, in collaboration with DNS infrastructure
>>>> elements, to publish and rotate its own ECH keys.  Other service
>>>> binding data such as information about TLS supported groups is
>>>> unlikely to change quickly, but the HTTP origin is much more likely
>>>> to have accurate information when changes do occur.  Service data
>>>> published via this mechanism is typically available via an HTTPS or
>>>> SVCB resource record.
>>>> 
>>>> File can be retrieved from:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-wkech/
>>>> 
>>>> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
>>>> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [e-mail]
>>>> in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are
>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>> 
>>>> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the
>>>> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79
>>>> [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the
>>>> provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of
>>>> any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can
>>>> be found at [3].
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
>>>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
>>>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>