Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18> for your review
"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Thu, 22 September 2022 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF8FC1522A9 for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=trammell.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtjOgiQvn0Tr for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-42ac.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-42ac.mail.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:4:17::42ac]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 468D1C152561 for <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-3-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch (unknown [10.4.36.108]) by smtp-3-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MYKj020hyzMqxgG; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:59:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:169:17b2:0:ad71:5cb8:d241:2388]) by smtp-3-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4MYKhz5T3XzMpnPs; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:59:15 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=trammell.ch; s=20191114; t=1663862356; bh=aHeUhDdGZFglbyqXc55H2++N5WqwM25CJAKOCYdHJmg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=RBTKsGwVVV3tyDu19xQc5yrywKC8cNIUhXWNlC4N20TA6pjk25KTlZLRW2WWA8wl2 As3g7oD8MCPZ+JKFQLmJNNUhAPzuIOLrv/XwA6OSsErpGig2KKdJn5ibBj+rJdLnwC kHc3QacV9n9XT3H+ljdmNeugi5ylKEwxqpvLwDeY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <37b7bed6-327e-bcbe-29ff-24a558771a4c@amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:59:15 +0200
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>, "quic-ads@ietf.org" <quic-ads@ietf.org>, "quic-chairs@ietf.org" <quic-chairs@ietf.org>, "matt.joras@gmail.com" <matt.joras@gmail.com>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5C48C4C4-32A5-4AC8-8DD6-EE7B8F4E4336@trammell.ch>
References: <20220825182149.F31EA6AAEC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <69FF8D79-D601-4730-8839-E09C44B7F37B@trammell.ch> <3237fd9c-b804-8ee0-1136-7be392a2ff83@amsl.com> <8E819A0D-8FFB-493E-9601-1841E2708B23@ericsson.com> <a955370c-78b8-c27f-7d88-714094b4f90a@amsl.com> <E338EF99-3845-4426-AA71-50540A3B82BE@ericsson.com> <37b7bed6-327e-bcbe-29ff-24a558771a4c@amsl.com>
To: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/EfYffQ0t4zKJWWtdN623c7ICaig>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 15:59:24 -0000
hi Jean, Oops, many thanks for the catch! Please use "Google Switzerland GmbH". Thanks, cheers, Brian > On 22 Sep 2022, at 17:36, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi Mirja and Brian, > > We have updated the [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY] reference to point to RFC 9312: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-lastrfcdiff.html > > Brian, > > We noticed that your affiliation is specified as the following. How may we make these consistent? > > RFC 9308: Google > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt > > > RFC 9312: Google Switzerland GmbH > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9312.txt > > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/jm > > On 9/22/22 8:35 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >> Hi Jean, >> >> yes, please publish these drafts together and update the reference accordingly. As you can see, I also just approved the updates to the manageability draft. >> >> Thanks! >> Mirja >> >> >> On 21.09.22, 22:59, "Jean Mahoney" <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Mirja, >> >> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308 >> >> We can now move this document forward in the publication process because >> it does not have a normative reference to [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY], which is >> currently listed as an I-D in the Informative References section. >> >> However, would you like to wait for RFC 9312 to complete AUTH48 so that >> the [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY] reference can be updated to point to the RFC? >> >> Best regards, >> Jean >> >> On 9/21/22 8:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >> > Hi Jean, >> > >> > thanks all changse look good to me! Thanks! >> > >> > Mirja >> > >> > >> > >> > On 21.09.22, 00:13, "Jean Mahoney" <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote: >> > >> > Brian, >> > >> > Thank you for your response and your approval. We have noted your >> > approval on the AUTH48 status page: >> > >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308 >> > >> > We have updated the document with your feedback: >> > >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-lastrfcdiff.html (these >> > changes side by side) >> > >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.pdf >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.html >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.xml >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-diff.html (all changes >> > inline) >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-rfcdiff.html (all changes >> > side by side) >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-auth48diff.html (all >> > AUTH48 changes inline) >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff1.html (XML >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff2.html >> > >> > Please note that we have updated the formatting and placement of the >> > Contributors section (apologies for not catching that sooner). >> > >> > We'll await word from Mirja regarding other AUTH48 feedback and/or approval. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > RFC Editor/jm >> > >> > On 9/20/22 2:14 PM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: >> > > Greetings, >> > > >> > > Replies inline >> > > >> > >> On 25 Aug 2022, at 20:21, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Authors, >> > >> >> > >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> > >> >> > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the >> > >> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >> > > QUIC, application protocol mapping, deployment >> > > >> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: FYI, we have expanded TAPS in the following: >> > >> >> > >> Original: >> > >> The IETF TAPS specifications [I-D.ietf-taps-arch] describe a system >> > >> with a common API for multiple protocols. >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> The IETF Transport Services (TAPS) specifications [TAPS-ARCH] describe >> > >> a system with a common API for multiple protocols. >> > >> --> >> > > This edit is fine >> > > >> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: We're having difficulty parsing the following sentence. Does rewriting the last part of the sentence improve readability? >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> In some cases, it might be sufficient to limit application data sent >> > >> in 0-RTT to that which only causes actions at a server that are known >> > >> to be free of lasting effect. >> > >> >> > >> Perhaps (clarifying that the data should not cause lasting effects): >> > >> In some cases, it might be sufficient to limit the application data sent >> > >> in 0-RTT to data that does not cause actions with lasting effects at a >> > >> server. >> > >> --> >> > > The suggested edit is good. >> > > >> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: This is the one instance of "NAT address rebinding", whereas the other instances are simply "NAT rebinding". Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. >> > >> >> > >> Original: >> > >> By using a connection ID, QUIC is designed to be robust to NAT address >> > >> rebinding after a timeout. >> > >> --> >> > > Suggest cutting “address”: >> > > >> > > NEW: >> > > >> > > By using a connection ID, QUIC is designed to be robust to NAT >> > > rebinding after a timeout. >> > > >> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: We found these sentences in the third paragraph difficult to parse because of the number of noun modifiers. >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> The size and rate of transport flow control credit updates can affect >> > >> performance.... >> > >> >> > >> Some implementations might have independent transport-layer and >> > >> application-layer receive buffers... >> > >> >> > >> However, a common flow control implementation technique is to extend >> > >> credit... >> > >> >> > >> Perhaps (splitting apart the descriptions): >> > >> The size and rate of updates to flow control credit can affect >> > >> performance.... . >> > >> >> > >> Some implementations might have independent receive buffers at the >> > >> transport layer and application layer.... >> > >> >> > >> However, a common implementation technique is to extend flow control >> > >> credit... >> > >> --> >> > > All of these suggested edits are good. >> > > >> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5: Are there some words missing in the example given in the following sentence? >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> An application that uses QUIC and communicates a cumulative stream >> > >> limit might require the connection to be closed before the limit is >> > >> reached, e.g., to stop the server to perform scheduled maintenance. >> > >> >> > >> Perhaps (adding "in order"): >> > >> An application that uses QUIC and communicates a cumulative stream >> > >> limit might require the connection to be closed before the limit is >> > >> reached, e.g., to stop the server in order to perform scheduled >> > >> maintenance. >> > >> --> >> > > This suggested edit is good. >> > > >> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: We're having difficulty with the following sentence because we do not see "DATA frames" in RFC 9000. We do see MAX_DATA and MAX_STREAM_DATA frames, but Section 13 discusses STREAM frames. Also, should "packets ... frames" be "packets' ... frames"? Please let us know how we may update this sentence. >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> By default, many implementations will try to maximally pack QUIC >> > >> packets DATA frames from one or more streams to minimize bandwidth >> > >> consumption and computational costs (see Section 13 of [QUIC]). >> > >> >> > >> --> >> > > I believe we misspelled “STREAM” here. >> > > >> > > NEW: >> > > >> > > By default, many implementations will try to pack STREAM frames from >> > > from one or more streams into each QUIC packet, in order to minimize >> > > bandwidth consumption and computational costs (see Section 13 of [QUIC]). >> > > >> > > >> > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 8: Does rewording the following sentence improve readability? >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> For applications with a fallback to TCP that do not already have an >> > >> alternate mapping to UDP, usually the registration (if necessary) and >> > >> use of the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP port already >> > >> registered for the application is appropriate. >> > >> >> > >> Perhaps (making "application" single, more clearly stating what is usually appropriate): >> > >> For an application with a fallback to TCP that does not already have an >> > >> alternate mapping to UDP, it is usually appropriate to register (if >> > >> necessary) and use of the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP >> > >> port already registered for the application. >> > >> --> >> > > NEW: >> > > >> > > For an application with a fallback to TCP that does not already have an >> > > alternate mapping to UDP, it is usually appropriate to register (if >> > > necessary) and use the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP >> > > port already registered for the application. >> > > >> > > >> > > (there’s a spurious “of”: “use of the UDP port…” -> “use the UDP port...”.) >> > > >> > > >> > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1: Would you like to provide a reference for memcached? >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> For example, these source ports are associated with >> > >> applications known to be vulnerable to reflection attacks often due >> > >> to server misconfiguration: >> > >> >> > >> * port 53 - DNS [RFC1034] >> > >> >> > >> * port 123 - NTP [RFC5905] >> > >> >> > >> * port 1900 - SSDP [SSDP] >> > >> >> > >> * port 5353 - mDNS [RFC6762] >> > >> >> > >> * port 11211 - memcached >> > >> --> >> > > Nope, the port is registered with IANA without reference. However, the service name is “memcache”, not “memcached”, so let’s reference by service name. >> > > >> > >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.2: FYI, we replaced the CID acronym, which is not used elsewhere, with "Connection ID" for clarity. Please let us know if there are any objections. >> > >> >> > >> Original: >> > >> Analysis of the lifetimes of six-tuples (source and destination >> > >> addresses as well as the migrated CID) may expose these links anyway. >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> Analysis of the lifetimes of 6-tuples (source and destination >> > >> addresses as well as the migrated Connection ID) may expose these >> > >> links anyway. >> > >> --> >> > > This edit is good. >> > > >> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.2: Does removing redundant wording improve the readability of the following? >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> Conversely, in the opposite limit where every server handles multiple >> > >> simultaneous migrations, even an exposed server mapping may be >> > >> insufficient information. >> > >> >> > >> Perhaps: >> > >> Conversely, when every server handles multiple >> > >> simultaneous migrations, even an exposed server mapping may be >> > >> insufficient information. >> > >> --> >> > > Yes, the suggested edit is good. >> > > >> > >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.3: RFC 5077 has been obsoleted by RFC 8446. How may we update the following cross reference? >> > >> >> > >> Original: >> > >> Section 4 of [RFC5077] describes an example approach for constructing >> > >> TLS resumption tickets that can be also applied for validation tokens, >> > >> however, the use of more modern cryptographic algorithms is highly >> > >> recommended. >> > >> >> > >> —> >> > > I believe the right thing to do here is not to update the cross-reference, as we're pointing out that the >> > > TLS session ticket example (removed from 8446 as far as I can tell) is useful guidance for building validation tokens. >> > > >> > > I would suggest some clarifying text here to note that we do, indeed, know that we're citing an obsolete RFC: >> > > >> > > NEW: >> > > >> > > The approach described in Section 4 of RFC5077 for constructing >> > > TLS resumption tickets provides an example that can also be applied to >> > > validation tokens. However, the use of more modern cryptographic algorithms >> > > than those presented in this example is highly recommended. >> > > >> > >> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 16: Does the following rewording improve the readability of the sentence? >> > >> >> > >> Current: >> > >> This document has no actions for IANA; however, note that Section 8 >> > >> recommends that application bindings to QUIC for applications using >> > >> TCP register UDP ports analogous to their existing TCP registrations. >> > >> >> > >> Perhaps: >> > >> This document has no actions for IANA; however, note that Section 8 >> > >> recommends that an application that has already registered a TCP port >> > >> but wants to specify QUIC as a transport should register a UDP port >> > >> analogous to their existing TCP registration. >> > >> --> >> > > Yes, this edit is good. >> > > >> > >> 14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology: We have made the following updates throughout the text. Please let us know if any changes are necessary. >> > >> >> > >> a) The following terms were used inconsistently. We have chosen the latter form: >> > >> >> > >> four-tuple / 4-tuple >> > >> five-tuple / 5-tuple >> > >> six-tuple / 6-tuple >> > >> application level / application layer >> > >> transport level / transport layer >> > >> Zero RTT / 0-RTT >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> b) Although the following term was formatted consistently, we have updated it to match other RFCs: >> > >> >> > >> DiffServ / Diffserv (RFC 7657) >> > >> --> >> > > These edits are good. >> > > >> > > >> > >> 15) <!-- [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. >> > >> --> >> > > Inclusive language checks are integrated into the CI pipeline used to build the document, and have addressed issues flagged by that check from time to time. A final check of the document revealed no issues. >> > > >> > > >> > > Modulo changes in this message, I approve this RFC for publication. >> > > >> > > Thanks, cheers, >> > > >> > > Brian >> > > >> > > >> > >> Thank you. >> > >> >> > >> RFC Editor/st/jm >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 8/25/22 1:17 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> > >> >> > >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> > >> >> > >> Updated 2022/08/25 >> > >> >> > >> 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 >> > >> >> > >> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). >> > >> >> > >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, >> > >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9308.xml >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.html >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.pdf >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt >> > >> >> > >> Diff file of the text: >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-diff.html >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> > >> >> > >> Diff of the XML: >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-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/rfc9308.original.v2v3.xml >> > >> >> > >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> > >> only: >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.form.xml >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Tracking progress >> > >> ----------------- >> > >> >> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308 >> > >> >> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> > >> >> > >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> > >> >> > >> RFC Editor >> > >> >> > >> -------------------------------------- >> > >> RFC9308 (draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18) >> > >> >> > >> Title : Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol >> > >> Author(s) : M. Kühlewind, B. Trammell >> > >> WG Chair(s) : Matt Joras, Lucas Pardue >> > >> >> > >> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker >> > >> >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney