Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tls-esni-24
review-ietf-tls-esni-24-intdir-telechat-pauly-2025-04-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tls-esni
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2025-05-02
Requested 2025-04-03
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Eric Rescorla , Kazuho Oku , Nick Sullivan , Christopher A. Wood
I-D last updated 2025-11-14 (Latest revision 2025-06-14)
Completed reviews Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -23 by R. (Miek) Gieben (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -23 by Carsten Bormann (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -23 by Adam W. Montville (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -23 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -23 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -24 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -24 by R. (Miek) Gieben (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -24 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tommy Pauly
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-tls-esni by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/GBuFzdHm1KZaXfjZ9OOI1cSQlDo
Reviewed revision 24 (document currently at 25)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-04-18
review-ietf-tls-esni-24-intdir-telechat-pauly-2025-04-18-00
"I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <draft-foo.txt>. These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document
editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other
Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT
Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>."

Thanks to the authors for a clear and important document.

From an INT perspective, I didn’t find any areas of concern. The example IP
addresses used are all v6, so that should make our ADs happy! :) Broadly, the
main relevance for INT here is that the privacy mechanism of obfuscating the
SNI works when at least several different names can be accessed via a common
address or set of addresses. The descriptions of this behavior looked correct.