Re: [TLS] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-05: (with COMMENT)

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 9/18/2019 9:07 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote
> Section 1:
>
> s/servers rely on the Service Name Information (SNI) TLS extension/servers rely
> on the Server Name Indication (SNI) TLS extension [RFC 6066]/
Yes of course.
>
> Section 2.1:
>
> Why is parental controls in quotes?

Removing the quotes, changing the text to

Content filtering by network operators or ISP blocking specific web sites
    in order to implement, for example, parental controls, or to prevent 
access
    to phishing or other fraudulent web sites.

Privacy advocates worry many sites are blocked for entirely different 
reasons than "protecting the children". The quotes were a leftover of 
these worry. The expanded text only uses parental control as an example, 
avoiding a dive in an unpleasant pool.

>
> Section 2.2:
>
> s/Encrypting the SNI now will complete this push/Encrypting the SNI completes
> this push/
>
> (for timelessness)
OK.
>
> Section 2.3:
>
> In the first paragraph I would suggest trying to use the present tense more so
> that this still makes sense far in the future.
>
> s/At the moment/At the time of this writing/

I am trying that, but there are two issues. The document itself is 
designed to help define SNI encryption, but does not define the SNI 
encryption solution, so deployment inevitably happens after this 
document is published. Then, the replacement solutions are not deployed 
yet. They are best described using conditional future.

-- Christian Huitema

>
>