Hi again, I meant to also mention that we updated the files to restore the tildes and remove the [rfced] questions that have been resolved. The up-to-date files are 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
This file highlights the diffs showing only the updates described above: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) Thanks, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Feb 18, 2026, at 9:42 AM, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
