4 ms·

It's even worse because they talk like ESNI is some kind of standard, but there's only been a single draft at the IETF written by a Mozilla employee, and that d

It's even worse because they talk like ESNI is some kind of standard, but there's only been a single draft at the IETF written by a Mozilla employee, and that draft is still at version 1. Calm down Mozilla, maybe other people would like to comment on the design before you go and implement it? Doing it like this is a great way to end up in interopeability hell down the road when different parties have implemented different versions. I'm not saying they have to wait until it's an RFC, but atleast wait for a couple more versions of the draft and let the IETF discuss it a bunch first. This is a big change.

orf 8y ago
Why does Chrome get to do this but not Mozilla? Why is field testing such an implementation a bad thing? What do more comments add over real, concrete data (up to a point)?
bryanlarsen 8y ago
IETF standards require prior implementation and testing.
tialaramex 8y ago
> but there's only been a single draft at the IETF written by a Mozilla employee I can see why it might look that way, but actually draft-ietf-tls-esni-01 is the third draft of this document, and has been co-written by at least four named authors including Chris Wood at Apple. Also that "Mozilla employee" was one of the Working Group chairs. draft-ietf-tls-esni-01 was preceded by draft-ietf-tls-esni-00 (it is usual for early drafts to have zero zero versions) draft-ietf-tls-esni-00 was preceded by draft-rescorla-tls-esni which was Eric Rescorla's first write-up of this idea Finally, though this document didn't exist twelve months ago, the "issues and requirements" document did. This document imports the thinking behind that document, it just provides an implementation and now Firefox is testing it. The reason for the name change is a thing called "adoption". The TLS Working Group agreed by consensus to adopt this piece of work, rather than it just being independent stuff by a handful of people who coincidentally were working group members. When that happens the draft's name changes, to reflect the adoption (removing a single person's name) and sometimes to use more diplomatic naming (e.g. the "diediedie" draft got a name that didn't tell TLS 1.0 to "die" any more when it was adopted).

orf 8y ago

Why does Chrome get to do this but not Mozilla? Why is field testing such an implementation a bad thing? What do more comments add over real, concrete data (up to a point)?

bryanlarsen 8y ago

IETF standards require prior implementation and testing.

tialaramex 8y ago

> but there's only been a single draft at the IETF written by a Mozilla employee I can see why it might look that way, but actually draft-ietf-tls-esni-01 is the third draft of this document, and has been co-written by at least four named authors including Chris Wood at Apple. Also that "Mozilla employee" was one of the Working Group chairs. draft-ietf-tls-esni-01 was preceded by draft-ietf-tls-esni-00 (it is usual for early drafts to have zero zero versions) draft-ietf-tls-esni-00 was preceded by draft-rescorla-tls-esni which was Eric Rescorla's first write-up of this idea Finally, though this document didn't exist twelve months ago, the "issues and requirements" document did. This document imports the thinking behind that document, it just provides an implementation and now Firefox is testing it. The reason for the name change is a thing called "adoption". The TLS Working Group agreed by consensus to adopt this piece of work, rather than it just being independent stuff by a handful of people who coincidentally were working group members. When that happens the draft's name changes, to reflect the adoption (removing a single person's name) and sometimes to use more diplomatic naming (e.g. the "diediedie" draft got a name that didn't tell TLS 1.0 to "die" any more when it was adopted).