I approve publication. Best, Chris
> On Feb 24, 2026, at 5:11 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Eric - Thank you for your reply. We have reverted all [RFC9846] citations > back to [RFC8446] per your response. Aside from the issue filed on GitHub for > this document (https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1308), we believe > there are no outstanding items that require further review. While this issue > is being worked on, we can still note formatting approvals (and therefore > final approvals) for this document. As requested, we will not proceed with > publication until issue #1308 is resolved. > > All - Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let > us know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for > publication. While this is your approval of the XML and its outputs, we > consider this your final assent that the document is ready for publication. > To request changes or approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this > email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need > to see your approval. > > Please note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this point on. > > XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml > > Output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > > Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Comprehensive diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > > Once all approvals are received, we will proceed with IANA updates. > > Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > >> On Feb 21, 2026, at 11:05 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 2:35 PM Madison Church >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Authors, >> >> Now that we have all necessary content approvals, we have converted the >> kramdown-rfc file to RFCXML. We made some additional formatting changes in >> the XML file, including reference updates. >> >> We also have additional comments for your review: >> >> 1) Upon completing the XML conversion, we came across a bug in the updated >> WHATWG-IPV4 reference, specifically in the TXT output. We have filed an >> issue with the Tools Team; see >> https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1308 for further clarification. >> >> >> This needs to be fixed before publication. >> >> >> 2) We have updated RFCs 8446 and 8447 to RFC-to-be-9846 and RFC 9847 per >> Sean Turner’s mail from 2 December 2025. With these reference updates, >> please review the updated files and let us know if any updates are needed to >> the current in-text citations for these RFCs. >> >> I'm not sure this is advisable. The net impact is that it puts these >> documents behind RFC 9846. I recognize that it's in Auth48, but we're >> working through some issues, so it's probably not going to be like next week. >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let us >> know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for publication. >> While this is your approval of the XML and its outputs, we consider this >> your final assent that the document is ready for publication. To request >> changes or approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email. >> Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see >> your approval. >> >> Please note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this point >> on. >> >> XML file: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml >> >> Output files: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html >> >> Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Comprehensive diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> 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 19, 2026, at 7:30 PM, Kazuho Oku <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for all the changes. I approve. >>> >>> 2026年2月19日(木) 5:54 Madison Church <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Hi Authors, >>>> >>>> We have noted approvals for Paul, Eric, and Chris on the AUTH48 status >>>> page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). Once we receive >>>> Kazuho’s approval for the document’s content, we will move forward with >>>> the RFCXML conversion and formatting updates. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> Madison Church >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Feb 18, 2026, at 2:39 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kazuho Oku >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
