Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06
review-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06-artart-lc-leiba-2024-10-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-11-15
Requested 2024-10-22
Authors Benjamin M. Schwartz , Mike Bishop , Erik Nygren
I-D last updated 2026-03-03 (Latest revision 2025-06-16)
Completed reviews Dnsdir Early review of -01 by Ted Lemon (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Matt Brown (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Lucas Pardue (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by James Gannon (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -07 by Marcus Ihlar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Barry Leiba
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/wKlndkfM7QGQ-RM2b3APgjOzOa0
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-10-23
review-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06-artart-lc-leiba-2024-10-23-00
Just two small comments on this straightforward document:

— Section 3 —

 Figure 1: ECH SvcParam with a public_name of "ech-sites.example.com"

The example actually encodes example.net, not example.com
[This was a test to see if we check these things, right? :-) ]

— Section 4 —

   These servers SHOULD support a protocol version that is compatible
   with ECH.

Why is this not a MUST?  What might be a reason to publish an ECH record for a
server that doesn’t support ECH?