Checking the diffs... In Section 3, the cite= attributes have been removed from two blockquotes referencing Section 7.8 and 9.3.6 of RFC 9110, replaced with section references in the text. For consistency, the later blockquote should also have the cite= attribute removed and converted to a section reference.
--Ben ________________________________ From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:41 PM To: Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9931 <draft-ietf-httpbis-optimistic-upgrade-06> for your review Hi Ben, Done! Thank you for the new wording. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9931.txt__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4tF0d-Ddsg6tL3T6PDADEmv2HPjGq5UQ2y77qOJ_lQjzFSk9vtHlz74ZSeJL0DZqMllLd7lB_KRMCq9kSnkC0Q$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9931.pdf__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4tF0d-Ddsg6tL3T6PDADEmv2HPjGq5UQ2y77qOJ_lQjzFSk9vtHlz74ZSeJL0DZqMllLd7lB_KRMCq8gCYN7_Q$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9931.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4tF0d-Ddsg6tL3T6PDADEmv2HPjGq5UQ2y77qOJ_lQjzFSk9vtHlz74ZSeJL0DZqMllLd7lB_KRMCq_ju_1l_Q$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9931.xml__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4tF0d-Ddsg6tL3T6PDADEmv2HPjGq5UQ2y77qOJ_lQjzFSk9vtHlz74ZSeJL0DZqMllLd7lB_KRMCq-8Ibl9Yg$ The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9931-diff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4tF0d-Ddsg6tL3T6PDADEmv2HPjGq5UQ2y77qOJ_lQjzFSk9vtHlz74ZSeJL0DZqMllLd7lB_KRMCq8HfaxZpg$ (comprehensive diff) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9931-auth48diff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4tF0d-Ddsg6tL3T6PDADEmv2HPjGq5UQ2y77qOJ_lQjzFSk9vtHlz74ZSeJL0DZqMllLd7lB_KRMCq9qcWZgQg$ (AUTH48 changes only) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9931__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!4tF0d-Ddsg6tL3T6PDADEmv2HPjGq5UQ2y77qOJ_lQjzFSk9vtHlz74ZSeJL0DZqMllLd7lB_KRMCq-XdPR7-g$ Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 3, 2026, at 12:43 PM, Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > > > Note that this mitigation will frequently impair the performance of > > correctly implemented clients, especially when returning a 407 (Proxy > > Authentication Required) response. > > > Would "impede" or "hinder" retain the intended meaning? > > Not quite. "decrease", "reduce", or "compromise" would be closer but seem > vague to me. > > My preference: > > Note that this mitigation will frequently cause slower connection > establishment for correctly implemented clients, ... > > --Ben
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
