> On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:06, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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). approved Paul > > 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]
[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9849 for your review
Paul Wouters via auth48archive Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:28:56 -0800
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9849 <d... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9849 ... Sean Turner via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9849 ... Eric Rescorla via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Eric Rescorla via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Eric Rescorla via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Eric Rescorla via auth48archive
- [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RF... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RF... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RF... Paul Wouters via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Eric Rescorla via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RF... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: [AD] Re: AUTH48... Paul Wouters via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: [AD] Re: AUTH48... Nick Sullivan via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: [AD] Re: AUTH48... Nick Sullivan via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Madison Church via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Eric Rescorla via auth48archive
- [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-... Madison Church via auth48archive
