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