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