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 >> > >> >>
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
