search

tlswg / draft-ietf-tls-esni

TLS Encrypted Client Hello
https://tlswg.github.io/draft-ietf-tls-esni/#go.draft-ietf-tls-esni.html
Other
229 stars 58 forks source link

Changes for draft-12 (was "Value of ECHConfig.version in draft-11?") #463

Closed cjpatton closed 3 years ago

cjpatton commented 3 years ago

ECHConfig is defined as

      struct {
          uint16 version;
          uint16 length;
          select (ECHConfig.version) {
            case 0xfe0a: ECHConfigContents contents;
          }
      } ECHConfig;

but the text below it says

Beginning with draft-08, the version is the same as the code point for the "encrypted_client_hello" extension. Clients MUST ignore any "ECHConfig" structure with a version they do not support.

The intention was to bump ECHConfig.version from 0xfe0a to 0xfe0b for draft-11, but this got missed by https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/458. (I wrote the PR, so I apologize for my part in missing this.) How do folks think we should resolve this? Do we need to cut a new draft with the ambiguity fixed?

davidben commented 3 years ago

Oh whoops, nice catch! Using 0xfe0a definitely won't work since the format and corresponding ClientECH extension has changed. I suppose all the implementors could just agree to mentally fix this typo when reading the draft, but may as well cut draft-12. Draft numbers are cheap.

cjpatton commented 3 years ago

We could try to pick up some editorial changes, too, like those suggested in #454.

davidben commented 3 years ago

I'd also personally be pretty happy to have #443 in there, but also fine to skip it for what's supposed to be a small bugfix draft snapshot.

sftcd commented 3 years ago

On 22/06/2021 20:43, David Benjamin wrote:

Oh whoops, nice catch! Using 0xfe0a definitely won't work since the format and corresponding ClientECH extension has changed. I suppose all the implementors could just agree to mentally fix this typo when reading the draft, but may as well cut draft-12. Draft numbers are cheap.

+1

I've not checked recent editorial changes but they're probably fine too.

S

cjpatton commented 3 years ago

I'd be happy to take #443 in draft-12 as well, though I'm inclined to think this should strictly be a bugfix/editorial draft. I'd say let's wait until Chris W. gets off back from PTO and let him make the call. Unless we're in a hurry, in which case we could ping one of the other authors to merge our changes and cut a draft.

chris-wood commented 3 years ago

Closing as resolved.