Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14> for your review
David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 26 May 2023 23:58 UTC
Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
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 9B7E4C151B0C; Fri, 26 May 2023 16:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.095 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URI_DOTEDU=1.999] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 j1AXnK4ioYiZ; Fri, 26 May 2023 16:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62d.google.com (mail-ej1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 ED0D4C151B00; Fri, 26 May 2023 16:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-970028cfb6cso247625366b.1; Fri, 26 May 2023 16:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685145511; x=1687737511; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NY1OmVKC4vuLm2NrxzB4+sGBe6Js7NkHRKYFnMxUFEE=; b=F+5l7qxb4OlyDu8DBRJkMZJsmXArUIijElF+KQXodhJT+VIpq+oLoBuK9T3kCoQ7C+ Nx6lwZiJT6yKoOjPpCmVrMhdATe02n94c4pFuubpMqGiCl+WCBDcJt+pg92j74dPIyXV aW69rp8aTnp/xLp7F3csfq/mgwh/uoRkNCytmztf3rE1bwYLhXCbV7vco3Yr1PwGWoWQ P4pqyMZPBepBCqalOd/oaoXLI47aZ9/gAKPczolNaV6+XzU/4VxcecY6K9eptW5fLlAg zl6ob1Oap2W68OOmZMk1vXjkxa1Tq+2r/a/Zst5OeH2tdZjuAVamp/LUgx03yaMbKyKD tEEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685145511; x=1687737511; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=NY1OmVKC4vuLm2NrxzB4+sGBe6Js7NkHRKYFnMxUFEE=; b=T77sUrYSpcQJsmaz5uDeoJRkLa3/wuFpDDJBfXS96gu9kSy12cRtkLWVwChIU/Ti9z Fnvy5mE1RSyuqy/tkRx6H0If1uQQi2R3qbzUcmb32VpsHCcEWqPjguh+XtYpGK2DKdGd A2LcTc+QXVy7I2Si5idqdC2SzuleujFaVqS8ATuS6oblph8jgKm5A3mU0YPtZviVKe3L Xcm2etW4npAiQce0GYFdi7KCzTnQf78SJrAOpjj/0m4MyzvcfkMme6uv1+BMPHPtXGHq eUGvXZtUOe7T5d4TjFk07rU5wf7caDreLdqCZT5+d5FsjTPclLz4qVFhRSzkshYhFajX FcgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzjvS1i8omEEQgY3tEtwy1NaouH7uZBCuWTdC8D/3QgaLKhfvAP fQk9z4mQ4v62YzxXzfWxvMRWGiJNsHQjmObyvCQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ590nPMvLExUnBaz1Vg+M/r4rwZIV8GemmUJxV3GCtwW2m+rBen/SuuyDcZ/gUCWpYCnuJal+44v3+sxukIt8A=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:a4d:b0:973:8823:f53f with SMTP id be13-20020a1709070a4d00b009738823f53fmr3934929ejc.52.1685145510388; Fri, 26 May 2023 16:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230224004202.B99B784D0C@rfcpa.amsl.com> <CAPDSy+4R_JK89xb4vQX3D3Et4G2anQbocnvrV-xrahJkZtkDmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAB1EFD3-B56F-45B6-AA19-17D5D483EF9D@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+5SDrErP5Wwc+s2B2Hd3zKc99kAcW7aYeVrS6+jVzGZVg@mail.gmail.com> <A463500E-E9F9-4E0B-9A0E-BF787AEBC3A5@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+7tAd35DS5iwYWOrU-3qRwn-D8zPfvG9KG9OHV73-VC5A@mail.gmail.com> <21E8A677-A4FA-4CE0-8C5A-D98F94A0CFB9@amsl.com> <DB7PR07MB399530527F4F4DE6E00452AB9FB09@DB7PR07MB3995.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <54E842AC-1F00-456B-8A74-7F484CF01EFA@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+5oaRoxw9LXkes-rrutPKvQhiXLKL=mSLM1AFWh-r7RBg@mail.gmail.com> <34A02D85-98F5-4967-BFA6-E8C8BC53682E@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+4of3U0JNrXAVBChR0ztoOOefMNC7vUVFY8yg-F3Ykcvg@mail.gmail.com> <C12A9F77-39BE-40AC-993A-709A8922EF45@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+7Nbfe17A8vjsXM_jvKt0OgY+yNisHcLnNrmBhEbFEiRg@mail.gmail.com> <449106C6-10A5-4C8D-80C0-B14EB0DEC78D@amsl.com> <CABcZeBNJ=M1DpoGQpqAwvap_3RM_jW=jWCZwiizKuz2EovRn2A@mail.gmail.com> <B9C269C2-3C60-4A07-8D15-FEB0F14E9A2B@amsl.com> <82343EA3-520B-4B12-B20E-04B51555A442@amsl.com> <CABcZeBPhb2gHh+3yORFBrQNBpxzuhdrrm0kmrXjFfXCEseuEzg@mail.gmail.com> <46FA7CAC-A1CF-4E56-8568-3E0429821917@amsl.com> <AF80239E-02AD-496C-B0FD-62EAC4543393@amsl.com> <14413544-C957-404D-BAC7-D5CEDF8765A9@amsl.com> <CABcZeBPR35GiRJxOpZPSd-SbNZpgEqPhC-H6zjAD_6mxhHpnpQ@mail.gmail.com> <67956BBF-1CCB-4574-B092-0C9A9DDC353A@amsl.com> <067A6ABA-F8CD-4E3B-A62C-555DBDA4165D@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+4WrjrSqz0VY_DRk0AX-j2UsAyx7pM9z-BGKJmfoGy7KA@mail.gmail.com> <888A5639-10F8-459A-AF18-4E08287FCDEC@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+7JW25RKJQgW7oOxMzvMewLLxu=nqS9heBaUGRQVy5Nqw@mail.gmail.com> <F2803E6F-5CC0-4FC0-B873-E00A91BF98E3@amsl.com> <CAPDSy+5SWdZZHT6TVUAubcPFedhtLs9RqZgxK6hL66DJbectGg@mail.gmail.com> <4E8E6ED7-F67A-4D6D-8149-56168703D846@amsl.com> <CABcZeBMo-oJzbVcj4QXO458hgqZN-fjKcmi8ghhBxUuCrVRk5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+7HHuADu1h4EZs6TbvurHd+=t==JGot-MKHJmY+RbzbuA@mail.gmail.com> <3931C6EC-2058-4924-9C2E-A00235449CC9@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <3931C6EC-2058-4924-9C2E-A00235449CC9@amsl.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 16:58:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+52JgL-Uv1K5chVHhhsf2hOrgc+Mdsq5_yKfb6kumUZwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, "matt.joras@gmail.com" <matt.joras@gmail.com>, "quic-ads@ietf.org" <quic-ads@ietf.org>, "quic-chairs@ietf.org" <quic-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008aa5ae05fca1834b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/L9vKhwh-BK-ByfXr4DOGH5-jIM8>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14> 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: Fri, 26 May 2023 23:58:37 -0000
I approve publication. David On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 4:49 PM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > Hi David and Eric, > > Thank you for your replies. > > Eric - We have updated our files with your proposed change from “that" to > “which" and left all other occurrences as is. This change can best be seen > in this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > > Once we have received explicit approvals from you and Zahed (AD), this > document will move forward in the publication process. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/ap > > > > On May 25, 2023, at 7:06 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > The change from that to which proposed by EKR is fine by me. I don’t > care strongly about commas. > > > > David > > > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 17:28 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > > Thanks. > > > > I have no opinion on the commas. David? > > > > On the topic of "which" vs. "that", I have reverted one of the changes > (see https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/135). > > > > The rest seem to be attempts to apply the rule that that should be used > rather than which in cases of integrated (restrictive) relatives. > > However, this is inconsistent with common English usage, as documented > in: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001461.html, so > I believe these > > are a matter of preference. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 8:27 AM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi Eric and Zahed*, > > > > *Zahed - This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and > approval of the updated text and key words added in Sections 2.5, 4, and 8 > in the diff file below: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > > > > Eric - Please note that we await your word regarding the use of > which/that and commas in this document (see our mail from 5/17/2023), as > well as your approval. > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff > diff between last version and this) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > On May 17, 2023, at 1:38 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alanna, thank you for those updates. > > > I know Eric had a stronger opinion on the use of which vs that and > commas, so I'll let him comment on that. > > > I personally don't feel strongly, so you can consider the document > approved from my perspective whichever way that you and Eric agree on. > > > David > > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:28 PM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files as requested, but > note that some of the instances with commas and which/that are not > grammatically correct. We suggest the comma usage from our previously sent > files. Please let us know if further updates are necessary. > > > > > > Regarding the numbered sentence, we have updated “which” to “that”, > but we recommend using “which” so that it is grammatically correct. Another > option would be to replace “that” with “— note that this”. Please let us > know your preference. > > > > > > Current: > > > This document specifies two means of performing version negotiation: > > > 1) "incompatible", which requires a round trip and is applicable to > > > all versions, and 2) "compatible", that allows saving the round trip > > > but only applies when the versions are compatible (see Section 2.2). > > > > > > Perhaps A: > > > This document specifies two means of performing version negotiation: > > > 1) "incompatible", which requires a round trip and is applicable to > > > all versions, and 2) "compatible", which allows saving the round > trip > > > but only applies when the versions are compatible (see Section 2.2). > > > > > > Perhaps B: > > > This document specifies two means of performing version negotiation: > > > 1) "incompatible", which requires a round trip and is applicable to > > > all versions, and 2) “compatible” — note that this allows saving > the round trip > > > but only applies when the versions are compatible (see Section 2.2). > > > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all > AUTH48 changes) > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff > diff between last version and this) > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > > > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > > Thank you, > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > On May 15, 2023, at 5:32 PM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Alanna. The suggestion of numerals sounds fine, I've added > the numbers 1) and 2) to our copy. We still have a few changes between our > copies: could you tweak the commas and which/that to match ours please? > > > > > > > > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=https://quicwg.github.io/version-negotiation/auth48/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation.txt&url1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 4:57 PM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi David and Zahed*, > > > > > > > > *Zahed - As the AD, please review and approve of the updated text > and key words added in Sections 2.5, 4, and 8 in the diff file below: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > > > > > > > > David - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files per the > diff file you provided. > > > > > > > > Note that there is one exception that we did not update. In Section > 2, “which” is used after “compatible” and “incompatible” so that the > descriptions are parallel. Would you prefer to add numerals to the sentence > for clarity as follows? > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > This document specifies two means of performing version negotiation: > > > > 1) “incompatible”, which requires a round trip and is applicable > to all > > > > versions and 2) “compatible”, which allows saving the round trip > but > > > > only applies when the versions are compatible (see Section 2.2). > > > > > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all > AUTH48 changes) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > > > > > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2023, at 3:50 PM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Alanna, > > > > > > > > > > Eric and I spent some time reviewing the document and we'd like to > make some minor changes. Here's a diff from your version to what we'd > prefer: > > > > > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=https://quicwg.github.io/version-negotiation/auth48/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation.txt&url1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > > > > > > Would you be able to make those changes please? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 9:00 AM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > > > > > This is a reminder that we await your review and approval of this > document prior moving it forward in the publication process. > > > > > > > > > > The files are here: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > > > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all > AUTH48 changes) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > > > > > > > > > This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2023, at 8:40 AM, Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a reminder that we await your review and approval prior to > moving this document forward in the publication process. > > > > > > > > > > > > The files are here: > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all > AUTH48 changes) > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > > > > > > > > > > > This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 26, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yee. I have now finished subcerts and am moving onto this. I > should have completed an initial review this week. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:05 AM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Eric, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Just a reminder that we await word from you regarding this > document's readiness for publication as an RFC. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The files are here: > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html > (all AUTH48 changes) > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > >> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Apr 7, 2023, at 12:39 PM, Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Hi Eric, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> This is friendly reminder that we await your review and > approval of the updated files. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html > (all AUTH48 changes) > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Thank you, > > > > > >>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On Mar 21, 2023, at 9:58 AM, Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Hi Eric, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Thank you for letting us know. We’ve noted this delay on the > AUTH48 status page: > > > > > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> We’ll check in the week after IETF 116 if we don’t hear back > from you first. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > > > >>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Mar 21, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> > wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks. At this point I am preparing for IETF and will > likely not get to this till after Yokohama. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 9:14 AM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> Hi Eric, > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> This is another friendly reminder that we await your review > and approval of the updated files before continuing with the publication > process. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html > (all AUTH48 changes) > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Mar 14, 2023, at 11:11 AM, Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eric, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and > approval of the updated files before continuing with the publication > process. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html > (all AUTH48 changes) > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2023, at 7:58 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thank you. I will try to look at it next week. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 6:29 PM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi David, > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thank you for your approval; it has been noted on the > AUTH48 status page: > > > > > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> We will await Eric’s approval before moving forward with > the publication process. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2023, at 4:12 PM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you so much Alanna. I approve publication of the > document. > > > > > >>>>>>>> David > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:01 PM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi David, > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> We have updated the document as requested and posted the > revised files here (please refresh): > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Please review and let us know if any additional updates > are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2023, at 2:49 PM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thank you Alanna! > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I just did my final full readthrough and found one last > issue. In Section 2.3 (Compatible Version Negotiation), a change to the > fifth paragraph unintentionally changes the meaning. Here is a crisper > phrasing: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> CURRENT: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> For instance, if the Negotiated Version requires that > the 5-tuple remain stable for the entire handshake (as QUIC version 1 > does), then both endpoints need to validate the 5-tuple of all Handshake > packets, including the converted first flight. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> FIXED: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> For instance, if the Negotiated Version requires that > the 5-tuple remain stable for the entire handshake (as QUIC version 1 > does), then both endpoints need to validate the 5-tuple of all packets > received during the handshake, including the converted first flight. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> David > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 12:21 PM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi David, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> We have fixed that nit. The update files are here > (please refresh): > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2023, at 11:28 AM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Alanna, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the updates. I've found a missing > parenthesis. In Section 3 (Version Negotiation), the second paragraph needs > a parenthesis before the final colon: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CURRENT: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The contents of Version Information are shown below > (using the notation from Section 1.3 of [QUIC]: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> FIXED: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The contents of Version Information are shown below > (using the notation from Section 1.3 of [QUIC]): > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> David > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:36 AM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Zahed, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your approval. We have noted it on the > AUTH48 status page: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> We will await approvals from Davis and Eric prior to > moving this document forward in the publication process. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2023, at 1:20 PM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker < > zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Approved. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for working on this publication. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> //Zahed > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 2:17:04 AM > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>; > Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; > Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.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>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org < > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 > <draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14> for your review > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi David and Zahed (AD)*, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> *Zahed - Please review and approve of the added text > in Section 2 and the updated text in Section 5 in the diff file below. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> David - Thank you for your reply and for contacting > IANA to update the registry. We have updated the files as you requested. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2023, at 6:15 PM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Alanna! > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I contacted IANA about the capitalization and they've > updated the registry to say "Error negotiating version” instead of “Error > Negotiating Version” in order to match other entries in that registry. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I did a pass on the document and found some changes > I'd like to make. Here is a diff between our version and yours (we're on > the left and you're the right) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://quicwg.github.io/version-negotiation/auth48/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation.txt&url2=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you tweak your copy to match the one on the left > please? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (you can ignore the differences in the reference > links at the end, that's a tooling issue) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> David > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:45 PM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We have made “Chosen Version” lowercase in the > Abstract and have capitalized “Original Version” and “Negotiated Version” > outside of the Abstract and Introduction. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, we have capitalized “Error Negotiating > Version” in Section 10.2 to match the IANA registry. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the > AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the > publication process. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2023, at 11:22 AM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Alanna. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we capitalized "Chosen Version", can we also > capitalize "Original Version" and "Negotiated Version" please? On that note > please do not capitalize any of these in the Abstract or Introduction, > since the terms aren't yet defined at that point and they're used in a more > vague fashion at that point. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't worry about requesting changes from IANA, > they've already fixed the typo (RFC Editor is CC'ed on that thread). > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:56 PM Alanna Paloma < > apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated as > requested. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that, once we have received all approvals, we > will ask IANA to update the "QUIC Transport Error Codes” registry to have > “Error negotiating version” (instead of “Error Negotiating Version”). > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us > with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes > once a document is published as an RFC. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on > the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the > publication process. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2023, at 10:40 AM, David Schinazi < > dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your work on this document! Responses > to your questions are inline. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 4:42 PM < > 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] FYI: Section 10.2. We have updated > the "Description" text > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> below to match the text in the IANA "QUIC Transport > Error Codes" > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> registry (i.e., updated "Error negotiating version" > to "Error > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiation version"). > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Value: 0x11 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code: VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Description: Error negotiating version > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status: permanent > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification: This document > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Value: 0x11 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code: VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Description: Error negotiation version > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status: permanent > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification: RFC 9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The change from "Error negotiating version" to > "Error negotiation version" was a typo made by IANA. I've emailed them > about it to have them fix the registry and CCed you. Please revert the > change to the document as the correct description is "Error negotiating > version". > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following > terminology appears to > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used inconsistently. Please review these > occurrences and let > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us know if/how they may be made consistent. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Chosen Version vs. chosen version (when not > "Chosen Version field") > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use "Chosen Version" to match "Partially > Deployed Versions" and "Fully Deployed Versions" (see below). > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Retry vs. retry (when not "Retry packet") > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC 9000 (which defines Retry) seems to always > capitalize Retry, so let's do that here too. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, may we capitalize these terms as > follows: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Handshake packet" (instead of "handshake packet") > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Note: this change will match use in the > companion document and > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be consistent with the capitalization of > the other packet > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> names.] > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Partially Deployed Versions" (instead of > "partially-deployed versions") > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Note: this change will match how "Fully Deployed > Versions" appears > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the text.] > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [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. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in > particular, but this should still > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be reviewed as a best practice. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any further needed changes due to > inclusive language. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap/kc > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2023, at 4:40 PM, > rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated 2023/02/23 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/rfc9368.xml > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.pdf > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.txt > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-diff.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368-xmldiff1.html > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture > v3-related format updates > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9368.form.xml > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------- > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document > are here: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9368 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC9368 (draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14) > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Title : Compatible Version Negotiation > for QUIC > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author(s) : D. Schinazi, E. Rescorla > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Matt Joras, Lucas Pardue > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft-ietf-quic-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft-ietf-q… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft-ietf-q… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… Zaheduzzaman Sarker
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… David Schinazi
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <… Zaheduzzaman Sarker
- Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft… Alanna Paloma