[TLS] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-07: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

________________________________
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

...

> Titles of sections 4 and 5 should include "TLS" to remove any ambiguity with
> "DNS" server/client as the topic is about DNS.

This draft is about a protocol element that bridges TLS and DNS, so these sections actually contain requirements that involve both protocols.  For example, Section 4 notes the requirement that DNS zone contents and TLS server configurations have to be coordinated (in a new way) to avoid failures.

In https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech/pull/24, based on Med's review, I've proposed changing the section headings to "Requirements for server deployments" and "Requirements for client implementations".  Would that change address this concern?

> Where is "SVCB-reliant" defined in `SVCB-reliant connection establishment` ?

These terms are defined in Section 3 of RFC 9460, which is referenced in the preceding sentence.

> While the examples of section 7 are welcome, I find the use of figure legends
> for explanations quite unreadable (notably because they are sometimes too
> concise and they do not clearly delineate the different examples).

These seem to render reasonably well in HTML, but the TXT output is less appealing.  If you have formatting suggestions I'm happy to incorporate them.

--Ben