I approve publication of the latest document. Thanks for the work, all. Best, Chris
> On Feb 11, 2026, at 4:25 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Kazuho, > > Thank you for your reply! We have updated our files to match your name > preference for consistency with other RFCs. > > For the change regarding HpkeKeyConfig, we will wait for additional > reviews/comments. > > 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 Feb 5, 2026, at 12:39 AM, Kazuho Oku <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello Madison, authors, >> >> Thank you very much for pushing the draft forward. >> >> I have read through the updated markdown and I would like to request two >> nits. >> >> I've separately filed a PR >> (https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/672), but the nits >> are: >> >> # Section 5 and Section 6.1: Incorrect references to properties of >> HpkeKeyConfig >> >> `cipher_suites`, `kem_id`, `public_key` are members of >> `HpkeKeyConfig`, and therefore it would be correct to refer to them as >> `ECHConfigContents.key_config.~`. However, `key_config` is missing. >> >> IMO this is editorial, however it is not a grammatical error, and >> therefore would appreciate reviews from other authors. >> >> # Update my name to use Kanji >> >> This would make the representation consistent with other RFCs that I >> coauthored. >> >> For the ease of the review, the diff file against the TXT version is >> attached. >> >> 2026年2月4日(水) 6:32 Madison Church <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> Thank you for the updated markdown file! Updated files are listed below. We >>> will wait to hear from you once you’ve completed your top-to-bottom read. >>> >>> 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 Feb 3, 2026, at 2:17 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is an updated markdown file with the outstanding PRs. The technical >>>> ones >>>> were reviewed. >>>> >>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/18715d4e44626db8f3460442e363ede9526277b0/rfc9849.md >>>> >>>> I still need to do my top-to-bottom read. >>>> >>>> -Ekr >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 11:55 AM Madison Church >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi Authors, >>>> >>>> This is another friendly weekly reminder that we await content approvals >>>> from Christopher, Kazuho, and Eric before moving along with formatting >>>> updates for this document. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> Madison Church >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Jan 27, 2026, at 2:37 PM, Madison Church >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Authors, >>>>> >>>>> This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await content approvals from >>>>> Christopher, Kazuho, and Eric before moving along with formatting updates >>>>> for this document. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Madison Church >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 17, 2026, at 6:37 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kazuho Oku >> <rfc9849.txt.kazuho.diff> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
