Inconsistent Logic: "Permissionless Innovation" is Defended for SNI Filtering but Opposed for ECH Deployment

[fortuna]

Draft Version: 10

The draft applies the principle of "permissionless innovation" inconsistently, championing it to defend existing practices while arguing against it in the context of ECH.

Defense of SNI-based Filtering: The draft defends the use of SNI by middleboxes for filtering—a use case for which the protocol extension was not originally designed. It argues that this is an example of "permissionless innovation" that is common in the development of the Internet and should not be dismissed.

Argument Against ECH Deployment: Conversely, the draft argues against the deployment of ECH in client software. It frames this as a change made "potentially without either the knowledge and/or consent of the end-user or device owner."

This creates a logical contradiction. The draft supports "permissionless innovation" when it benefits the practice of SNI-based filtering but opposes the same principle when applied to the client-side implementation of ECH for enhanced privacy. This inconsistent application of a core principle should be addressed.