Hi Eric, *Paul, Eric - Thank you for your reply! We weren’t sure if this was intentional, so thank you for clarifying. We have moved RFC YYY1 to the Informative References section.
*Paul - As responsible AD, please let us know if you approve RFC YYY1 as an Informative Reference. Please review the contents of the document carefully. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document’s contents in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward with formatting updates. For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part approval process), see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html Markdown file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html (diff showing AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Markdown diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 Thank you, Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Dec 5, 2025, at 4:38 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > I believe that the citation to RFCYYY1 should be informative, not normative. > I corrected that in > my version but I guess I forgot to flag it. Paul, co-authors, any objections? > > -Ekr > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 2:16 PM Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thank you for the updated markdown file! We have incorporated your edits into > the document. Upon further review, we have also updated the term "Shared > Mode" to follow the same pattern as "Split Mode" (uppercase on first use and > in titles, lowercase otherwise). Please let us know any objections. > Additionally, we will update the WHATWG reference per our discussion during > formatting. Aside from the updates mentioned, we have no further > questions/comments at this time. > > Please review the contents of the document carefully. Contact us with any > further updates or with your approval of the document’s contents in its > current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving > forward with formatting updates. > > For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part > approval process), see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > > Markdown file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html (diff showing > AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Markdown diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > > Thank you, > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > > On Dec 4, 2025, at 7:12 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here is an updated markdown file with the fixed width adjustments. > > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/refs/heads/auth48/rfc9849.md > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 9:49 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 6:23 AM Madison Church > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > Thank you for your reply! Please see inline. > > > > > On Dec 2, 2025, at 1:38 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Re the questions and comments: > > > > > > * I will send a revised file with the fixed width issues fixed > > > > Noted! > > > > > * As I understand the WHATWG question, there are two distinct issues (1) > > > whether to reference a commit and (2) whether to reference fragments. I'm > > > OK with referencing a commit like this if that's what you agreed with > > > WHATWG, but I read this text as saying not to reference fragments unless > > > we ensure that the anchor is permanent > > > https://whatwg.org/working-mode#anchors. Have we done so for this one? > > > > Thank you for clarifying. We are unsure if the current anchor [1] is > > permanent, so we would recommend not using it and using the more general > > one [2]. However, if any other authors put in a request with WHATWG to make > > that anchor permanent, please let us know. > > > > [1] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-ipv4-parser > > [2] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ > > > > I think we are in agreement, then, thanks. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > Madison Church > > RFC Production Center > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 6:58 AM Madison Church > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Authors, > > > > > > This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await answers to the followup > > > questions/comments below and your review of the document before > > > continuing with the publication process. For details of the AUTH48 > > > process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part approval process), see: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > Madison Church > > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > On Nov 25, 2025, at 8:34 AM, Madison Church > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested and > > > > have two followup items for your review, which can be viewed in the > > > > AUTH48 thread below or in the updated markdown file marked with > > > > "rfced". > > > > > > > >> On Nov 20, 2025, at 10:33 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Update: I fixed my affiliation. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:23 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Thank you. I am editing this in GitHub. I merged in your proposed > > > >> changes except > > > >> for those I think are inadvisable, which I reverted. I answered your > > > >> questions inline. > > > >> > > > >> You can find the latest markdown file here (also attached): > > > >> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/refs/heads/auth48/rfc9849.md > > > >> > > > >> -Ekr > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:53 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Authors, > > > >> > > > >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > > > >> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > >> > > > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] References > > > >> > > > >> a) Regarding [WHATWG-IPV4], this reference's date is May 2021. > > > >> The URL provided resolves to a page with "Last Updated 12 May 2025". > > > >> > > > >> Note that WHATWG provides "commit snapshots" of their living standards > > > >> and > > > >> there are several commit snapshots from May 2021 with the latest being > > > >> from 20 > > > >> May 2021. For example: 20 May 2021 > > > >> (https://url.spec.whatwg.org/commit-snapshots/1b8b8c55eb4bed9f139c9a439fb1c1bf5566b619/#concept-ipv4-parser) > > > >> > > > >> We recommend updating this reference to the most current version of > > > >> the WHATWG > > > >> Living Standard, replacing the URL with the more general URL to the > > > >> standard > > > >> (https://url.spec.whatwg.org/), and adding a "commit snapshot" URL to > > > >> the > > > >> reference. > > > >> > > > >> Current: > > > >> [WHATWG-IPV4] > > > >> WHATWG, "URL - IPv4 Parser", WHATWG Living Standard, May > > > >> 2021, <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-ipv4-parser>. > > > >> > > > >> EKR: Per MT, WHATWG has asked us not to do that. We should leave > > > >> this as-is and change the date to December 2025. > > > > > > > > 1) For context, we reached out to WHATWG in September about a format > > > > for references to their standards (see: > > > > https://github.com/whatwg/meta/issues/363). The proposed update below > > > > for this reference reflects the approved format. It would be helpful > > > > for the RPC to know what WHATWG has asked authors to not do so that we > > > > can reach out for clarification and update our recommended citation if > > > > necessary. With this in mind, let us know if any updates need to be > > > > made. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > [WHATWG-IPV4] > > > > WHATWG, "URL - IPv4 Parser", WHATWG Living Standard, > > > > <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-ipv4-parser>. > > > > > > > > Commit snapshot: > > > > > > > > https://url.spec.whatwg.org/commit-snapshots/1b8b8c55eb4bed9f139c9a439fb1c1bf5566b619/#concept-ipv4-parser > > > > > > > > Regarding the date, we don't recommend using a future date for a > > > > reference as it doesn't reflect the date for a currently published work > > > > (unless there is an anticipated update to the WHATWG specification in > > > > December 2025). > > > > > > > >> d) FYI, RFCYYY1 (draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech) will be updated during the > > > >> XML stage. > > > >> --> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following terms use fixed-width font > > > >> inconsistently. Please review these terms and let us know how we > > > >> should update > > > >> or if there are any specific patterns that should be followed (e.g., > > > >> fixed-width font used for field names, variants, etc.). > > > >> > > > >> accept_confirmation > > > >> cipher_suite > > > >> ClientHello > > > >> ClientHelloInner > > > >> ClientHelloOuter > > > >> ClientHelloOuterAAD > > > >> config_id > > > >> ECHClientHello > > > >> ECHConfig > > > >> ECHConfig.contents.public_name > > > >> ECHConfigContents > > > >> ECHConfigList > > > >> EncodedClientHelloInner > > > >> inner > > > >> maximum_name_length > > > >> outer > > > >> payload > > > >> public_key > > > >> ServerHello.random > > > >> zeros > > > >> —> > > > >> > > > >> EKR: Thanks. Fixed width should be used for field names and other PDUs. > > > >> > > > >> I notice that some of these are regular words (zeros) so you have to > > > >> determine from context whether it's referring to some protocol element > > > >> or just to the concept "carries an encrypted payload" versus "the > > > >> payload field". Do you want to take a cut at changing as many of these > > > >> as make sense and then I can review, or would you prefer I make the > > > >> changes? > > > >> One question is what to do in definition lists. My sense is that the > > > >> list heds should be non-fixed-width but maybe you have a convention. > > > > > > > > 2) Thank you for offering to make changes. Please feel free to attach > > > > an updated markdown file containing the changes for terms using > > > > fixed-width font. > > > > > > > > For definition lists, we typically leave this up to the authors to > > > > determine how they would like the terms to appear for consistency. For > > > > an example of terms in a definition list using a fixed-width font, see: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9623.html#section-5.1.1. > > > > > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > > > > > > > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > > > > by side) > > > > > > > > Markdown diffs: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > > > > > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849. > > > > > > > > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward with > > > > formatting updates. For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc > > > > (including the two-part approval process), see: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > Madison Church > > > > RFC Production Center > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
