On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 2:37 PM Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All, > > Paul - We have noted your approvals for the two proposed technical changes. > > Nick - Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval for the > contents of this document on the AUTH48 status page and implemented your > requested updates. The diff file was incredibly helpful! > > We will wait for confirmation to implement the technical changes. > I will implement the technical changes in my copy. -Ekr > > 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. Once we receive approvals from Christopher, Kazuho, and Eric, > we will move 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 Jan 14, 2026, at 9:42 AM, Nick Sullivan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello RFC Production Center, > > > > I reviewed the currently posted AUTH48 text for RFC-to-be 9849 > > (rfc9849.txt on the RFC Editor authors page). Below are a small set of > > remaining editorial issues. > > > > Two items that are technically non-editorial are already being handled > > in the TLS WG GitHub repository (issues 656 and 665 / corresponding > > open PRs). To avoid duplication, I am not requesting those changes > > here or requesting any expansion of RFC number placeholders (for > > example RFCYYY1) in this note. > > > > A) Typos and minor editorial fixes (no intended technical change) > > > > Section 5.1 (Encoding the ClientHelloInner) > > - Replace “structured defined” with “structure defined”. > > Section 6.1 (Offering ECH) > > - Capitalization: “Instead, It MUST …” -> “Instead, it MUST …”. > > Section 7 (Server Behavior introduction) > > - Consistency: “back-end server” -> “backend server”. > > Section 10.8 (Cookies) > > - Insert missing space: “unencrypted.This” -> “unencrypted. This”. > > Section 11.3 (ECH Configuration Extension Registry) > > - Fix grammar in the “Recommended” field description and remove > > duplicated wording (“value with a value of”). > > > > Proposed patch (unified diff against the currently posted rfc9849.txt; > > excludes items already covered by issues 656 and 665; no RFC > > placeholder expansions) > > > > ``` > > --- rfc9849.txt > > +++ rfc9849.txt > > @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ > > - structured defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC9147]. This does not > > + structure defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC9147]. This does not > > > > @@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ > > - ClientHelloInner.random. Instead, It MUST generate a fresh > > + ClientHelloInner.random. Instead, it MUST generate a fresh > > > > @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ > > - the client-facing server or as the back-end server. Depending > on the > > + the client-facing server or as the backend server. Depending > on the > > > > @@ -1706,7 +1706,7 @@ > > - unencrypted.This means differences in cookies between backend > > + unencrypted. This means differences in cookies between backend > > > > @@ -2114,13 +2114,12 @@ > > - Recommended: A "Y" or "N" value indicating if the extension is TLS > > - WG recommends that the extension be supported. This column is > > - assigned a value of "N" unless explicitly requested. Adding a > > - value with a value of "Y" requires Standards Action [RFC8126]. > > + Recommended: A "Y" or "N" value indicating if the TLS Working Group > > + recommends that the extension be supported. This column is > assigned a > > + value of "N" unless explicitly requested. Adding a value of "Y" > > + requires Standards Action [RFC8126]. > > ``` > > > > GitHub PR: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/671/files > > > > With these changes, the publication is approved by me. > > > > Thank you, > > Nick Sullivan > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 12:28 PM Nick Sullivan > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Madison, > >> > >> Apologies for the delay, I was intending to do this over the new year > but didn't get to it. I'll review by end of week. > >> > >> Best, > >> Nick > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:31 AM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> 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]
