Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-esni feedback

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:45 AM Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:24 AM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:15 AM Stephen Farrell <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 22/10/2019 19:10, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >>> > Uh,why?
> >>>
> >>> Openness, transparency, enabling the WG to make decisions on
> >>> the list.
> >>
> >>
> >> The WG has the chance to make decisions on the list *in response to*
> proposals in the draft. At this stage of the draft development, I don't
> think it's problematic for authors to put proposals in a draft with the
> understanding that they are proposals.. Eventually...
> >
> >
> > This seems fine to me, fwiw. It was a little weird to hear about the
> decision in this way, but that kind of thing is always happening behind the
> scenes. :)
> >
> > It seems to me that the client is in the best position to set the
> padding, so I’m not sure why there is anything in the DNS record.
>
> Strongly disagree.  If one IP address hosts two domains, short.example
> and longlonglonglonglonglonglonglong.example, a client of
> short.example has no SNI privacy unless they pad up to the length of
> the longer name.  The client can't know to do this unless the DNS
> record says so.


Well, I am not sure we are disagreeing so strongly. I want to pad
everything up to 260 since the ClientHello will still fit in one packet. I
think it would be ok to send a minimum length in the DNS record.

thanks,
Rob