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) 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]>: > >>> > >>> 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]
