I'll also give it a top-to-bottom read before the new year. On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:34 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]
