Hi Eric, 1. Thanks for noting this! We didn’t intend to touch the fences. After some experimentation, it turns out that it’s the result of copying and pasting (trims a tilde) versus downloading the file. We’ll be sure to download and check for these characters moving forward.
2. You are correct — my mistake. I should have asked that you let us know whether the content is stable and ready to be converted to XML. We will ask for a final approval once we convert the markdown to XML and all remaining queries are resolved. Thanks, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Feb 17, 2026, at 3:50 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > HI Sandy, > > 1. Can you explain the changes to the markdown fences, > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/679. Is there some > significance here? > 2. This says "approve the RFC for publication", but as I understood it we > will see another version once you do the XML conversion, and need to sign off > on that. Is that correct? > > -Ekr > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 3:38 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) > > > 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]
