Hi Authors, *Paul, *Paul - As responsible AD, please note that we await your approval of RFC YYY1 as an Informative Reference (changed from Normative to Informative).
Authors - This is a friendly reminder that we 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 11, 2025, at 10:07 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
