ah thanks, Approved
Paul On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 1:48 PM Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > This is also my mistake - apologies for the confusion! > > Please review the diffs in this file and let us know if you approve: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849v4fixed-rfcdiff.html > > > Thanks, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > > On Feb 18, 2026, at 10:29 AM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:38 PM Sandy Ginoza < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Eric, Paul*, > > > > Thank you for your review and the updated .md file. The current files > are available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > > > > Diffs of the most recent updates: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > AUTH48 diffs: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > Comprehensive diffs: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > > > * Paul, please review the diffs of the most recent updates and let us > know if you approve. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > I am a bit confused here as the diff contains questions from you to us, > and I am not sure if I and/or authors are still > > supposed to choose an option. That is, you seem to be asking more than > just approval from me? > > > > Otherwise, the changes looks fine to me. > > > > Paul > > > > Authors, please let us know if any additional updates are needed or if > you approve the RFC for publication. > > > > Thank you, > > Sandy Ginoza > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2026, at 10:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Please find an updated markdown file at: > > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/baf67ab50fb5238eab07d7e3f081aec4495c4742/rfc9849.md > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 8:14 AM Christopher Wood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I approve publication of the latest document. Thanks for the work, all. > > > > > > Best, > > > Chris > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2026, at 4:25 PM, Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Kazuho, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply! We have updated our files to match your > name preference for consistency with other RFCs. > > > > > > > > For the change regarding HpkeKeyConfig, we will wait for additional > reviews/comments. > > > > > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > > > > > > > > Markdown file: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > > > > > > > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html (diff > showing AUTH48 changes) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > > > > > Markdown diffs: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > > > > > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > Madison Church > > > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > >> On Feb 5, 2026, at 12:39 AM, Kazuho Oku <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hello Madison, authors, > > > >> > > > >> Thank you very much for pushing the draft forward. > > > >> > > > >> I have read through the updated markdown and I would like to > request two nits. > > > >> > > > >> I've separately filed a PR > > > >> (https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/672), but the > nits > > > >> are: > > > >> > > > >> # Section 5 and Section 6.1: Incorrect references to properties of > HpkeKeyConfig > > > >> > > > >> `cipher_suites`, `kem_id`, `public_key` are members of > > > >> `HpkeKeyConfig`, and therefore it would be correct to refer to them > as > > > >> `ECHConfigContents.key_config.~`. However, `key_config` is missing. > > > >> > > > >> IMO this is editorial, however it is not a grammatical error, and > > > >> therefore would appreciate reviews from other authors. > > > >> > > > >> # Update my name to use Kanji > > > >> > > > >> This would make the representation consistent with other RFCs that > I coauthored. > > > >> > > > >> For the ease of the review, the diff file against the TXT version > is attached. > > > >> > > > >> 2026年2月4日(水) 6:32 Madison Church <[email protected]>: > > > >>> > > > >>> 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]
