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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <
>> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[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
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>