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