approved (via email and at the PRs listed) Paul
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:49 PM Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Authors, *Paul, > > Happy new year! > > This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you > regarding the readiness of this document’s contents before moving forward > with formatting updates. > > *Paul - As responsible AD for this document, please review the changes > below and let us know if you approve: > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/668 > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/667 > > For the AUTH48 status page, see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > . > > Thank you! > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > > On Dec 18, 2025, at 12:46 PM, Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > Thank you for the followup! We have updated the AUTH48 status page ( > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849) and we will wait to hear from > you once you complete your final content review. > > > > Madison Church > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Dec 18, 2025, at 12:33 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]
