Approved. Paul
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 7:19 PM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > Authors and Paul*, > > *Paul - As the AD, please review and approve of the following added > sentence in Section 3 prior to Figure 1. > > Original: > ech="AEj+DQBEAQAgACAdd+scUi0IYFsXnUIU7ko2Nd9+F8M26pAGZVpz/KrWPgAEAAEAAWQ > VZWNoLXNpdGVzLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0AAA=" > > Current: > This example uses line wrapping per [RFC8792]. > > ech="AEj+DQBEAQAgACAdd+scUi0IYFsXnUIU7ko2Nd9+F8M26pAGZVpz/KrWPgAEAAE\ > AAWQVZWNoLXNpdGVzLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0AAA=" > > See this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-auth48diff.html > > > Authors - We have updated the line break in Figure 1 accordingly. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > changes side by side) > > Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once > published as RFCs. > > We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each > author and *Paul prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9848 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Dec 23, 2025, at 12:02 PM, Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That representation of the line break is fine with me. > > > > --BenFrom: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 1:51 PM > > To: Ben Schwartz <[email protected]>; Erik Nygren < > [email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected]<[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected]<[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9848 <draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-08> for > your review > > > > > > Hi Erik and Ben, > > > > Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. > > > > > 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.") > > > > ) Regarding the line break in Figure 1, we can add a sentence before the > figure explaining the line break along with a citation to RFC 8792, which > describes how to handle long lines in RFCs. Please review and let us know > if this is acceptable. Note that we would also add an informative reference > entry to RFC 8792. > > > > See here for examples of this in recently published RFCs: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9902.html*appendix-A__;Iw!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqgKTeoWH$ > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9891.html*name-response-bundle__;Iw!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqm2AA4V-$ > > > > Original: > > > ech="AEj+DQBEAQAgACAdd+scUi0IYFsXnUIU7ko2Nd9+F8M26pAGZVpz/KrWPgAEAAEAAWQ > > VZWNoLXNpdGVzLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0AAA=" > > > > Perhaps: > > This example uses line wrapping per [RFC8792]. > > > > ech="AEj+DQBEAQAgACAdd+scUi0IYFsXnUIU7ko2Nd9+F8M26pAGZVpz/KrWPgAEAAE\ > > AAWQVZWNoLXNpdGVzLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0AAA=“ > > … > > [RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, > > "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts > and > > RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020, > > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8792__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqtOX6-wN$ > >. > > > > --- > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.xml__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqh6sue5Q$ > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.txt__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqvhfJwyN$ > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqvPYt84k$ > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.pdf__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqjD1lQEk$ > > > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-diff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqm-lbIri$ > (comprehensive diff) > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-auth48diff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqp7G0eDZ$ > (AUTH48 changes) > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqqIJFegI$ > (AUTH48 changes side by side) > > > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further > updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is > published as an RFC. > > > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page > below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9848__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqvVq59wQ$ > > > > Thank you, > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2025, at 8:12 AM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc= > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > These changes all look fine to me. > > > > > > Regarding the line break in Figure 1, I would shift the line break by > the smallest amount needed to fit within the character limit. > > > > > > --BenFrom: Erik Nygren <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 11:01 AM > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]< > [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected]<[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; > [email protected]<[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9848 <draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-08> for > your review > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqpYagtCx$ > . --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > $ORIGIN heterogeneous.example. ; Example zone with 2 pools of servers > > > --> > > > > > > > > > Fine with me > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We updated <artwork> to <sourcecode> in the figures in > this > > > document. Currently, the "type" attribute is not set. Please review the > > > types at > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqjW8ZAYY$ > , > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqrRG3D8S$ > > > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqrB37GPz$ > ). > > > > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqrr67_k4$ > ). > > > > > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqjfxymWz$ > >. > > > > > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqmzFYPfT$ > > > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqiVLlVWW$ > > > > > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.xml__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqh6sue5Q$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqvPYt84k$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.pdf__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqjD1lQEk$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848.txt__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqvhfJwyN$ > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-diff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqm-lbIri$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-rfcdiff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqtbn9JBC$ > (side by side) > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9848-xmldiff1.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqhLNf2td$ > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > ----------------- > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9848__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!76HWmC5fyE0RYRdsFVuNmZFbbkQF0_R8hHv5V6MvPoBAA0RKjKA7QICOg2hGC9Xis8jLbme5yOGiqvVq59wQ$ > > > > > > 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]
