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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

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
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>