Authors, We have now received all necessary approvals for this document and consider AUTH48 complete [1].
To our understanding, we anticipate that the fix for issue #1308 [2] will be included in a new release of xml2rfc relatively soon. We will be sure to keep everyone up to date, and we will move the document forward in the publication process once the issue is resolved and the fix has been implemented into the document. Until then, we will place this document in Tooling Issue (TI) state [3]. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Thank you for your patience and collaboration during the AUTH48 process. Best, Madison Church RFC Production Center [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 [2] https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1308 [3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/ > On Feb 27, 2026, at 10:28 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Amanda, > > The changes look good. Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > >> On Feb 26, 2026, at 4:38 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> These entries have been updated: >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-ech-configuration-extensions >> >> thanks, >> Amanda >> >> On Thu Feb 26 20:54:23 2026, [email protected] wrote: >>> IANA, >>> >>> Please update each entry in the Notes column as follows for the "TLS >>> ECHConfig Extension" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls- >>> ech-configuration-extensions/tls-ech-configuration- >>> extensions.xhtml#tls-echconfig-extension). >>> >>> Current: >>> Grease entries. >>> >>> Updated: >>> GREASE entries >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Madison Church >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Feb 26, 2026, at 2:48 PM, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Eric, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 >>>> status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). >>>> >>>> We will now ask IANA to make their updates. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> Madison Church >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Feb 26, 2026, at 12:48 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I approve contingent on the break in issue #1308 being fixed. >>>>> >>>>> -Ekr >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 11:37 AM Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi Chris, Kazuho, Nick, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your replies. We have marked your final approvals on >>>>> the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). Once we receive approval from Eric, we >>>>> will ask IANA to complete their updates. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Madison Church >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2026, at 12:21 PM, Christopher Wood >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I approve publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2026, at 5:11 PM, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Authors, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eric - Thank you for your reply. We have reverted all [RFC9846] >>>>>>> citations back to [RFC8446] per your response. Aside from the >>>>>>> issue filed on GitHub for this document (https://github.com/ietf- >>>>>>> tools/xml2rfc/issues/1308), we believe there are no outstanding >>>>>>> items that require further review. While this issue is being >>>>>>> worked on, we can still note formatting approvals (and therefore >>>>>>> final approvals) for this document. As requested, we will not >>>>>>> proceed with publication until issue #1308 is resolved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All - Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF >>>>>>> outputs, and let us know if any changes are required or if you >>>>>>> approve the RFC for publication. While this is your approval of >>>>>>> the XML and its outputs, we consider this your final assent that >>>>>>> the document is ready for publication. To request changes or >>>>>>> approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email. >>>>>>> Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message >>>>>>> need to see your approval. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note that we will only make changes in the XML file from >>>>>>> this point on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> XML file: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Output files: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side >>>>>>> by side) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comprehensive diff file of the text: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by >>>>>>> side) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once all approvals are received, we will proceed with IANA >>>>>>> updates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Madison Church >>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2026, at 11:05 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 2:35 PM Madison Church >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello Authors, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now that we have all necessary content approvals, we have >>>>>>>> converted the kramdown-rfc file to RFCXML. We made some >>>>>>>> additional formatting changes in the XML file, including >>>>>>>> reference updates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We also have additional comments for your review: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Upon completing the XML conversion, we came across a bug in >>>>>>>> the updated WHATWG-IPV4 reference, specifically in the TXT >>>>>>>> output. We have filed an issue with the Tools Team; see >>>>>>>> https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1308 for further >>>>>>>> clarification. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This needs to be fixed before publication. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) We have updated RFCs 8446 and 8447 to RFC-to-be-9846 and RFC >>>>>>>> 9847 per Sean Turner’s mail from 2 December 2025. With these >>>>>>>> reference updates, please review the updated files and let us >>>>>>>> know if any updates are needed to the current in-text citations >>>>>>>> for these RFCs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure this is advisable. The net impact is that it puts >>>>>>>> these documents behind RFC 9846. I recognize that it's in Auth48, >>>>>>>> but we're working through some issues, so it's probably not going >>>>>>>> to be like next week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Ekr >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, >>>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are required or if you approve the >>>>>>>> RFC for publication. While this is your approval of the XML and >>>>>>>> its outputs, we consider this your final assent that the document >>>>>>>> is ready for publication. To request changes or approve your RFC >>>>>>>> for publication, please reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY >>>>>>>> ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your >>>>>>>> approval. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note that we will only make changes in the XML file from >>>>>>>> this point on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> XML file: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Output files: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes): >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side >>>>>>>> by side) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Comprehensive diff file of the text: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by >>>>>>>> side) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 19, 2026, at 7:30 PM, Kazuho Oku <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for all the changes. I approve. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2026年2月19日(木) 5:54 Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> editor.org>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Authors, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have noted approvals for Paul, Eric, and Chris on the AUTH48 >>>>>>>>>> status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). >>>>>>>>>> Once we receive Kazuho’s approval for the document’s content, >>>>>>>>>> we will move forward with the RFCXML conversion and formatting >>>>>>>>>> updates. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>>> Madison Church >>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2026, at 2:39 PM, Paul Wouters >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ah thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Approved >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 1:48 PM Sandy Ginoza >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is also my mistake - apologies for the confusion! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please review the diffs in this file and let us know if you >>>>>>>>>>> approve: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849v4fixed-rfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Sandy Ginoza >>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2026, at 10:29 AM, Paul Wouters >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:38 PM Sandy Ginoza >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, Paul*, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your review and the updated .md file. The >>>>>>>>>>>> current files are available here: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Diffs of the most recent updates: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> AUTH48 diffs: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Comprehensive diffs: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side >>>>>>>>>>>> by side) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * Paul, please review the diffs of the most recent updates >>>>>>>>>>>> and let us know if you approve. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am a bit confused here as the diff contains questions from >>>>>>>>>>>> you to us, and I am not sure if I and/or authors are still >>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to choose an option. That is, you seem to be asking >>>>>>>>>>>> more than just approval from me? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, the changes looks fine to me. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Authors, please let us know if any additional updates are >>>>>>>>>>>> needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>>> Sandy Ginoza >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2026, at 10:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find an updated markdown file at: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls- >>>>>>>>>>>>> esni/baf67ab50fb5238eab07d7e3f081aec4495c4742/rfc9849.md >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 8:14 AM Christopher Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editor.org>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <rfc- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [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> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Kazuho Oku >>>>> >>>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
