FWIW I think Paul actually just approved this one change, not the overall RFC.
I have merged this markdown file into the version on GitHub. There are two pending changes that are technically not just editorial, though I think obvious and need Paul's approval: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/668 https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/667 In parallel, I will also need to give it a final top-to-bottom read, which I hope to do in the next week or so. -Ekr On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:42 AM Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
