Hi Chris, Kazuho, Nick, Thank you for your replies. We have marked your final approvals on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). Once we receive approval from Eric, we will ask IANA to complete their updates.
Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Feb 25, 2026, at 12:21 PM, Christopher Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
