Hi Paul, We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849).
Thanks! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:27 AM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> 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]
