Re: [auth48] [C468] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9368 <draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14> for your review

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you. I will try to look at it next week.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 6:29 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> 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 <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you so much Alanna. I approve publication of the document.
> >>>>>> David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:01 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Approved.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks all for working on this publication.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> //Zahed
> >>>>>>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 2:17:04 AM
> >>>>>>>>> To: David Schinazi <[e-mail]>; Zaheduzzaman
> Sarker <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; Eric
> Rescorla <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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 <[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] 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, [e-mail] 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *  [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/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
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>