Responses inline below. On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 5:32 PM <[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] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > Some proposed keywords: "ech SvcParamKey" "ech SvcParam" "ECH" "SVCB" "HTTPS Resource Records" "TLS SNI" "Encrypted SNI" "Server Name Indication" "Encrypted Server Name Indication" > 2) <!--[rfced] FYI - We moved the second sentence in the title of Figure 2 > out of > the title. It now directly follows the figure. Please review and let us > know of any objections. > > Original: > Figure 2: Simple example zone with the same configuration on the > apex and web domain. It is compatible with clients that do or do > not support HTTPS records. > > Current: > Figure 2: Simple Example Zone with the Same Configuration on the > Apex and Web Domain > > > The example above is compatible with clients that do or do not support > HTTPS records. > --> > > Fine with me > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Figures 1 and 3 are too long for the line limit of the text > output (72 characters in the text, which means 69 characters within the > sourcecode element in the XML file). Please let us know how these figures > should be updated. > > a) Figure 1 - perhaps break at the "/" > > Original: > ech="AEj+DQBEAQAgACAdd+scUi0IYFsXnUIU7ko2Nd9+F8M26pAGZVpz/KrWPgAEAAEAAWQ > VZWNoLXNpdGVzLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0AAA=" > > Perhaps: > ech="AEj+DQBEAQAgACAdd+scUi0IYFsXnUIU7ko2Nd9+F8M26pAGZVpz/ > KrWPgAEAAEAAWQVZWNoLXNpdGVzLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0AAA=" > > Hm. Unfortunately the referenced RFC doesn't allow for line breaks within a string and the whole point of the example is that escape characters aren't allowed. If we put a newline there we likely need to clearly indicate that in the caption such as with ("Note that there is no newline after the "/" in this example.") Other authors? > b) Figure 3 - perhaps change "two" to "2" > > Original: > $ORIGIN heterogeneous.example. ; Example zone with two pools of servers > > Perhaps: > $ORIGIN heterogeneous.example. ; Example zone with 2 pools of servers > --> > > Fine with me > 4) <!-- [rfced] We updated <artwork> to <sourcecode> in the figures in this > document. Currently, the "type" attribute is not set. Please review the > types at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types, > and let us know if one is applicable. If the list does not contain an > applicable > type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the > "type" attribute not set. > > Note: RFC 9460 used type="dns-rr" for sourcecode similar to Figures 2-7 in > this document. > --> > > Using type="dns-rr" makes sense. > > 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following > abbreviations > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) > resource record set (RRSet) > --> > > Sounds good with me. Looking through a diff of the text version didn't raise any flags or concerns about editorial changes made. I'll do a deeper review on the hopefully-final version. Thank you and Happy Holidays, Erik > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online > Style Guide < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still > be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > > Thank you. > > Alanna Paloma and Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > > On Dec 12, 2025, at 2:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/12/12 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9848 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9848 (draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-08) > > Title : Bootstrapping TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS > Service Bindings > Author(s) : B. Schwartz, M. Bishop, E. Nygren > WG Chair(s) : Joseph A. Salowey, Sean Turner, Deirdre Connolly > > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
