Hello Madison, authors, Thank you very much for pushing the draft forward.
I have read through the updated markdown and I would like to request two nits. I've separately filed a PR (https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/672), but the nits are: # Section 5 and Section 6.1: Incorrect references to properties of HpkeKeyConfig `cipher_suites`, `kem_id`, `public_key` are members of `HpkeKeyConfig`, and therefore it would be correct to refer to them as `ECHConfigContents.key_config.~`. However, `key_config` is missing. IMO this is editorial, however it is not a grammatical error, and therefore would appreciate reviews from other authors. # Update my name to use Kanji This would make the representation consistent with other RFCs that I coauthored. For the ease of the review, the diff file against the TXT version is attached. 2026年2月4日(水) 6:32 Madison Church <[email protected]>: > > 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 > > > > > > -- Kazuho Oku
rfc9849.txt.kazuho.diff
Description: Binary data
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
