Approved. -Ekr
On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 9:48 AM Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
