Re: [auth48] Final question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9297 <draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-11> for your review

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lucas,

Sorry for the delayed reply!  Very impressive! As Lynne noted (privately, but sharing with permission): 

   Wow -- "Ode to the RFC Editor"!  Very fun! 

Thanks!
Sandy 



> On Aug 24, 2022, at 10:44 AM, Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Since we're trading ST:TNG, I thought I'd riff on Data next
> 
> RFC Editor is your taxonomic nomenclature,
> An editing collective, distributed by nature;
> Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses
> Contribute to your grammar skills and spelling defenses.
> 
> I find myself pleased by your inbox notifications,
> A multitude development of email communications
> That obviates the technical english predilection,
> requiring often quite straightforward paragraph corrections.
> 
> A sense of humor is essential for your lexic talents;
> You would not be so patient if you lacked its counterbalance.
> And when not being utilized to aid in rectification,
> It often serves to illustrate the state of amelioration.
> 
> O RFC Editor, the complex levels of documents you read
> Connote a fairly well-developed industry need.
> And though you are not omnipresent, and may not comprehend,
> Authors nonetheless consider you a true and valued friend.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:50 PM Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
> 
> "make it so” - done!  Thanks for your quick reply, (Jean-)Luc.  We have updated the document; it will be announced shortly.  
> 
> Sandy 
> 
> > On Aug 23, 2022, at 2:27 PM, Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Sandy,
> > 
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2022, 21:36 Sandy Ginoza, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > We have a final question as we prepare this document for publication.  This doc references RFC 793, which has obsoleted by RFC 9293 (STD 7) last week.  May we update the reference?
> > 
> > In the words of Captain Picard, please "make it so" and update the ref.
> > 
> > Live long and prosper
> > Lucas
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Sandy 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On Aug 22, 2022, at 12:56 PM, David Schinazi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Thank you Megan. I've reviewed the latest copy and I approve publication.
> > > 
> > > David
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hi David and Lucas,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for sending along these changes.  We have updated as requested and reposted the files.  As you both sent your approvals, we just request that one of you confirm the updates as they have been inserted in the file (note that we slightly changed your updated text for #3 below).
> > > 
> > > That should be the last communication we need from you to continue the publication process (we will begin moving this document forward in the publication process once we hear confirmation from IANA that the requested capitalization change has been made — see separate mail following this one): so David can go on vacation with this one in the bag :)
> > > 
> > >   The files have been posted here:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.txt
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.pdf
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.xml
> > > 
> > >   The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-diff.html (comprehensive)
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive rfcdiff)
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-lastdiff.html (last version to this)
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-lastrfcdiff.html (same as above in rfcdiff)
> > > 
> > >   The AUTH48 status page exists here:
> > >    http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9297
> > > 
> > > Thank you.
> > > 
> > > RFC Editor/mf
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > On Aug 16, 2022, at 7:03 PM, Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Megan,
> > > > 
> > > > I've reviewed all the changes and I'm happy for the document to be published.
> > > > 
> > > > Many thanks to you and RFC editor team for your hard work and assistance. 
> > > > 
> > > > BR
> > > > Lucas
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, 20:48 David Schinazi, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Thank you so much! Responses to your two questions are inline.
> > > > 
> > > > Additionally, after rereading the latest copy with fresh eyes, we would like to make a few minor changes:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) In section 3.2, the HTTP/3 reference should be to Section 4.4 instead of 4.2
> > > > REPLACED TEXT
> > > >     Therefore, once both endpoints agree to use the Capsule Protocol, the frame usage requirements of the stream change as specified in Section 8.5 of [HTTP/2] and Section 4.4 of [HTTP/3].
> > > > 
> > > > 2) In section 3.3, the HTTP/3 reference should be to Section 4.1.2 instead of 4.1.3
> > > > REPLACED TEXT
> > > >     For HTTP/3, the handling of malformed messages is described in Section 4.1.2 of [HTTP/3].
> > > > 
> > > > 3) In Section 3.5, since Datagram Capsules are always sent on a stream, "which" sounds more correct than "that"
> > > > REPLACED TEXT
> > > >     Note that while DATAGRAM Capsules which are sent on a stream are reliably
> > > >     delivered in order, intermediaries can re-encode DATAGRAM Capsules into QUIC
> > > >     DATAGRAM frames when forwarding messages, which could result in loss or
> > > >     reordering.
> > > > 
> > > > 4) In Section 4, we would like to add the word "directly" to the second paragraph:
> > > > REPLACED TEXT:
> > > >    Since use of the Capsule Protocol is restricted to new HTTP upgrade tokens, it
> > > >    is not directly accessible from Web Platform APIs (such as those commonly
> > > >    accessed via JavaScript in web browsers).
> > > > 
> > > > 5) We would like to tweak how we acknowledge Ben:
> > > >    OLD TEXT: Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Ben Schwartz for writing the first proposal that used two layers of indirection.
> > > >    NEW TEXT: Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Ben Schwartz for substantive input.
> > > > 
> > > > A rendered diff of all these last changes is available here:
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff/?url1=https://ietf-wg-masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/auth48/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram.txt&url2=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.txt
> > > > 
> > > > Apart from this, I think we're good to go.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > David
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 4:04 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Hi David,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks so much for the guidance and updated XML file.  
> > > > 
> > > > We have reviewed the changes and updated our files accordingly. 
> > > > 
> > > > Please note that we:
> > > > 1) updated the text you changed in response to Question 1a below.  
> > > > We believe the change was applied to the wrong text.  
> > > > Please review to ensure the Intro now appears as expected.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah yes I copy-pasted over the wrong paragraph, thank you for catching that! The Intro looks correct now.
> > > > 
> > > > 2) will communicate the capitalization change in Section 5.2 to IANA 
> > > > prior to publication for a corresponding update to 
> > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/http3-parameters.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you, that sounds great.
> > > > 
> > > >   The files have been posted here:
> > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.txt
> > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.pdf
> > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.html
> > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.xml
> > > > 
> > > >   The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive rfcdiff)
> > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
> > > > 
> > > >   The AUTH48 status page exists here:
> > > >    http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9297
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you.
> > > > 
> > > > RFC Editor/mf
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > On Aug 10, 2022, at 4:41 PM, David Schinazi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you for your edits on the document. We have incorporated them
> > > > > (modulo some small edits) to our working markdown copy, and have an
> > > > > updated version here:
> > > > > https://ietf-wg-masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/auth48/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram.html
> > > > > https://ietf-wg-masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/auth48/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram.txt
> > > > > I've also attached an updated XML file.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You can also see the diff between your current copy and ours here:
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff/?url1=https://ietf-wg-masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/auth48/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram.txt&url2=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.txt
> > > > > 
> > > > > Detailed responses inline.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:43 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > Authors,
> > > > > 
> > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> > > > > the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the descriptions
> > > > >      of "HTTP Datagrams" in a few places throughout the text.
> > > > > 
> > > > > a) We see the following similar sentences in the Abstract, Introduction, and
> > > > > Section 2, respectively.  Please review and let us know if this text should 
> > > > > be made more uniform.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original (Abstract): 
> > > > > This document describes HTTP Datagrams, a convention for
> > > > > conveying multiplexed, potentially unreliable datagrams inside an HTTP
> > > > > connection.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original (Intro): 
> > > > > In Section 2, this document describes HTTP Datagrams, a
> > > > > convention that supports the bidirectional and optionally multiplexed 
> > > > > exchange of data inside an HTTP connection.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original (Section 2): 
> > > > > HTTP Datagrams are a convention for conveying
> > > > > bidirectional and potentially unreliable datagrams inside an HTTP 
> > > > > connection, with multiplexing when possible.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please keep the abstract and Section 2 unmodified, but let's change the Introduction to
> > > > > 
> > > > > In Section 2, this document describes HTTP Datagrams, a convention
> > > > > for conveying bidirectional and potentially unreliable datagrams inside
> > > > > an HTTP connection, with multiplexing when possible.
> > > > > 
> > > > > b) Pending changes made in (a) above, we will update the first sentence 
> > > > > of the Abstract as follows unless we hear objection 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > > This document describes HTTP Datagrams, a convention for
> > > > > conveying multiplexed, potentially unreliable datagrams inside an HTTP
> > > > > connection.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps: 
> > > > > This document describes a convention for conveying multiplexed,
> > > > > potentially unreliable datagrams inside an HTTP connection called “HTTP
> > > > > Datagrams”.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We prefer the original text.
> > > > > 
> > > > > c) This sentence, which is somewhat related, seems a bit odd in that it seems 
> > > > > sending something "unreliably" is desired.  Should any clarification here be 
> > > > > added?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > > In HTTP/3, HTTP Datagrams can be sent unreliably using the QUIC
> > > > >    DATAGRAM extension.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We expect readers to be familiar with why unreliability is useful, we'd prefer to keep this as-is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2) <!--[rfced] To what does "these goals" refer?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original: 
> > > > > When HTTP Datagrams are conveyed on an HTTP/3 connection, the QUIC
> > > > > DATAGRAM frame can be used to achieve these goals, including unreliablea
> > > > > delivery; see Section 2.1.
> > > > > -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's instead say:
> > > > > 
> > > > > When HTTP Datagrams are conveyed on an HTTP/3 connection, the QUIC
> > > > > DATAGRAM frame can be used to provide demultiplexing and unreliable
> > > > > delivery; see Section 2.1.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the "type" attribute should be set for
> > > > > sourcecode elements in the XML file. If the current list of preferred
> > > > > values for "type"
> > > > > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) does not
> > > > > contain an applicable type, then feel free to suggest a new one.
> > > > > Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.  -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed, everything looks good.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced]  We suggest rephrasing this sentence. The phrase "might have 
> > > > > practical barriers to determining..." is difficult to parse. Does the suggested 
> > > > > text below accurately convey the intended meaning?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > > Generating an error is not mandatory in this case because HTTP/3
> > > > > implementations might have practical barriers to determining the
> > > > > active stream concurrency limit that is applied by the QUIC layer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > Generating an error is not mandatory in this case because HTTP/3
> > > > > implementations might present practical barriers when determining the
> > > > > active stream concurrency limit that is applied by the QUIC layer.
> > > > > -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's instead do:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Generating an error is not mandatory because the QUIC stream limit
> > > > > might be unknown to the HTTP/3 layer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] In the description of Figure 3, should "Type" be
> > > > >      lowercased here?  We see lowercased forms of "length" and "value"
> > > > >      in the two entries below this for "Capsule Length" and "Capsule
> > > > >      Value", respectively.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Capsule Type:  A variable-length integer indicating the Type of the
> > > > >       capsule. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lower-case type here sounds good.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] For the ease of the reader, may we rephrase this text as
> > > > >      follows?  Or is there another way to rephrase?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > >    Capsule Length:  The length in bytes of the Capsule Value field
> > > > >    following this field, encoded as a variable-length integer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > >    Capsule Length:  The length, in bytes, of the Capsule Value field,
> > > > >    which follows this field, encoded as a variable-length integer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your suggestion sounds great to us.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Might the change from "exactly" to "the exact" improve
> > > > >      the flow of this sentence?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > > Each capsule's payload MUST contain exactly the fields identified in
> > > > > its description.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > Each capsule's payload MUST contain the exact fields identified in its
> > > > > description.
> > > > > -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > This text mimics similar text in RFC 9114, we prefer to keep it as-is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 8) <!--[rfced] In the following text, should the names of the status
> > > > >      codes appear as they do in the rest of the document?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > > ...a status code that is both different from 101 and outside the
> > > > >    2xx range.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > ...a status code that is both different from 101 (Switching Protocols)
> > > > > and outside the 2xx (Successful) range.
> > > > > -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your suggestion sounds great to us.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 9) <!--[rfced] Is it really the Definition that performs the security
> > > > >      analysis?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original:
> > > > > Definitions of new HTTP Upgrade Tokens that use the Capsule
> > > > > Protocol need to perform a security analysis that considers
> > > > > the impact of HTTP Datagrams and Capsules in the context of
> > > > > their protocol.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > Definitions of new HTTP Upgrade Tokens that use the Capsule Protocol
> > > > > need to include a security analysis that considers the impact of HTTP
> > > > > Datagrams and Capsules in the context of their protocol.  -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your suggestion sounds great to us.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions regarding the IANA
> > > > >         Considerations section.
> > > > > 
> > > > > a) The "HTTP/3 Settings" registry also contains Date, Contact, and
> > > > > Notes fields.  Should these be added to the Section 5.1 of this
> > > > > document?
> > > > > 
> > > > > b) The "HTTP/3 Error Codes" registry also contains Date and Notes
> > > > > columns. Should these be added to Section 5.2 of this document?
> > > > > 
> > > > > c) The "HTTP Capsule Types" registry also contains a Date column.
> > > > > Should Section 5.4 be updated to match?-->
> > > > > 
> > > > > The document already contains the Contact field. Let's add Notes: None.
> > > > > Leaving out the Date field is preferable here, IANA has already used
> > > > > the date of registration.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 11) <!--[rfced] Might it be helpful to the reader to cite the specific 
> > > > > document or clarify what you are referring to using "QUIC DATAGRAM FRAME 
> > > > > definition"?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original: 
> > > > > Portions of this document were previously part of the QUIC DATAGRAM
> > > > > frame definition itself,...
> > > > > -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > I prefer to avoid references in acknowledgements, if the reader is
> > > > > confused by the acknowledgements section no harm is done. Let's
> > > > > keep as-is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to 
> > > > > terminology use:
> > > > > 
> > > > > a) The following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. Please
> > > > > review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made
> > > > > consistent.
> > > > > 
> > > > > capsule protocol vs. Capsule Protocol (may need an IANA update)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's use Capsule Protocol
> > > > > 
> > > > > Upgrade token vs. Upgrade Token (note that RFC-to-be 9298 contained a 
> > > > > question about "connect-udp" HTTP Upgrade Token vs. "connect-udp" upgrade 
> > > > > token)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's use upgrade token
> > > > > 
> > > > > capsule type vs. Capsule Type (should "field" follow the capped version?)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's use Capsule Type and add field when relevant
> > > > > 
> > > > > capsule vs. Capsule (generally)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's use Capsule
> > > > > 
> > > > > b) RFC 9000 uses "stream ID".  Should "Quarter Stream ID" be made 
> > > > > "Quarter stream ID"?  This would match the use of "QUIC stream ID" in this 
> > > > > document as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's use "Quarter Stream ID field"
> > > > > 
> > > > > c) Please review the use of quotes with header field (and possibly field) 
> > > > > names.  The companion document (draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-15) most 
> > > > > frequently uses double quotes around header field names.  Should this 
> > > > > document do the same?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Following the HTTP style guide, we need to use quotes when defining new
> > > > > headers but not when citing others. I'll fix CONNECT-UDP to follow this.
> > > > > https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide
> > > > > 
> > > > > d) May we update to use "Item Structured field" (with field lowercase) 
> > > > > to match other field names?  FYI: RFC 8941 uses "Item Structured Header".
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's use "Item Structured Field" to match RFC 8941, the "Field" here
> > > > > is a different kind of "field" from elsewhere in this document.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
> > > > > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> > > > > and let us know if any changes are needed. -->
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have reviewed this and not found any issues.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > 
> > > > > RFC Editor/mc/mf
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Aug 9, 2022, at 5:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > > > > 
> > > > > Updated 2022/08/09
> > > > > 
> > > > > RFC Author(s):
> > > > > --------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
> > > > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
> > > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
> > > > > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> > > > > 
> > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
> > > > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
> > > > > your approval.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Planning your review 
> > > > > ---------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document:
> > > > > 
> > > > > *  RFC Editor questions
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
> > > > >    that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
> > > > >    follows:
> > > > > 
> > > > >    <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> > > > > 
> > > > >    These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> > > > > 
> > > > > *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
> > > > >    coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
> > > > >    agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> > > > > 
> > > > > *  Content 
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
> > > > >    change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
> > > > >    - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> > > > >    - contact information
> > > > >    - references
> > > > > 
> > > > > *  Copyright notices and legends
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> > > > >    RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
> > > > >    (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> > > > > 
> > > > > *  Semantic markup
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
> > > > >    content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
> > > > >    and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
> > > > >    <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> > > > > 
> > > > > *  Formatted output
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
> > > > >    formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
> > > > >    reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
> > > > >    limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Submitting changes
> > > > > ------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
> > > > > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
> > > > > include:
> > > > > 
> > > > >    *  your coauthors
> > > > > 
> > > > >    *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> > > > > 
> > > > >    *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
> > > > >       IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
> > > > >       responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> > > > > 
> > > > >    *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
> > > > >       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
> > > > >       list:
> > > > > 
> > > > >      *  More info:
> > > > >         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> > > > > 
> > > > >      *  The archive itself:
> > > > >         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> > > > > 
> > > > >      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
> > > > >         of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
> > > > >         If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
> > > > >         have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
> > > > >         [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
> > > > >         its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> > > > > 
> > > > > An update to the provided XML file
> > > > >  — OR —
> > > > > An explicit list of changes in this format
> > > > > 
> > > > > Section # (or indicate Global)
> > > > > 
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > old text
> > > > > 
> > > > > NEW:
> > > > > new text
> > > > > 
> > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
> > > > > list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> > > > > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
> > > > > and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
> > > > > the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Approving for publication
> > > > > --------------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> > > > > that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> > > > > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Files 
> > > > > -----
> > > > > 
> > > > > The files are available here:
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.xml
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.html
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.pdf
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.txt
> > > > > 
> > > > > Diff file of the text:
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-diff.html
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Diff of the XML: 
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297-xmldiff1.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
> > > > > diff files of the XML.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.original.v2v3.xml 
> > > > > 
> > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> > > > > only: 
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9297.form.xml
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tracking progress
> > > > > -----------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > > > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9297
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > > > > 
> > > > > RFC Editor
> > > > > 
> > > > > --------------------------------------
> > > > > RFC9297 (draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-11)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Title            : HTTP Datagrams and the Capsule Protocol
> > > > > Author(s)        : D. Schinazi, L. Pardue
> > > > > WG Chair(s)      : Christopher A. Wood, Eric Kinnear
> > > > > Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > <rfc9297.xml>
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>