Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18> for your review
Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Thu, 22 September 2022 16:20 UTC
Return-Path: <jmahoney@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA64C1522A9 for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QrsKkOFZbuyK for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3098C14CE34 for <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D267A425A375; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LbsKezn2BV81; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [47.186.48.51]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E33B4259779; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <96c721d5-2363-98e2-dc49-fdd94e6bab6d@amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 11:20:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>, "quic-ads@ietf.org" <quic-ads@ietf.org>, "quic-chairs@ietf.org" <quic-chairs@ietf.org>, "matt.joras@gmail.com" <matt.joras@gmail.com>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20220825182149.F31EA6AAEC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <69FF8D79-D601-4730-8839-E09C44B7F37B@trammell.ch> <3237fd9c-b804-8ee0-1136-7be392a2ff83@amsl.com> <8E819A0D-8FFB-493E-9601-1841E2708B23@ericsson.com> <a955370c-78b8-c27f-7d88-714094b4f90a@amsl.com> <E338EF99-3845-4426-AA71-50540A3B82BE@ericsson.com> <37b7bed6-327e-bcbe-29ff-24a558771a4c@amsl.com> <5C48C4C4-32A5-4AC8-8DD6-EE7B8F4E4336@trammell.ch>
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <5C48C4C4-32A5-4AC8-8DD6-EE7B8F4E4336@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/Wom-JmgRzC9VbCWBwG8bJK3TV54>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:20:09 -0000
Hi Brian, On 9/22/22 10:59 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: > hi Jean, > > Oops, many thanks for the catch! Please use "Google Switzerland GmbH". [JM] Done! https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-lastrfcdiff.html We'll continue moving this document and RFC 9312 forward in the publication process. Best regards, Jean > > Thanks, cheers, > > Brian > >> On 22 Sep 2022, at 17:36, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Mirja and Brian, >> >> We have updated the [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY] reference to point to RFC 9312: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-lastrfcdiff.html >> >> Brian, >> >> We noticed that your affiliation is specified as the following. How may we make these consistent? >> >> RFC 9308: Google >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt >> >> >> RFC 9312: Google Switzerland GmbH >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9312.txt >> >> >> Best regards, >> RFC Editor/jm >> >> On 9/22/22 8:35 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>> Hi Jean, >>> >>> yes, please publish these drafts together and update the reference accordingly. As you can see, I also just approved the updates to the manageability draft. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Mirja >>> >>> >>> On 21.09.22, 22:59, "Jean Mahoney" <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mirja, >>> >>> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: >>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308 >>> >>> We can now move this document forward in the publication process because >>> it does not have a normative reference to [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY], which is >>> currently listed as an I-D in the Informative References section. >>> >>> However, would you like to wait for RFC 9312 to complete AUTH48 so that >>> the [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY] reference can be updated to point to the RFC? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jean >>> >>> On 9/21/22 8:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>> > Hi Jean, >>> > >>> > thanks all changse look good to me! Thanks! >>> > >>> > Mirja >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 21.09.22, 00:13, "Jean Mahoney" <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Brian, >>> > >>> > Thank you for your response and your approval. We have noted your >>> > approval on the AUTH48 status page: >>> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308 >>> > >>> > We have updated the document with your feedback: >>> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-lastrfcdiff.html (these >>> > changes side by side) >>> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.pdf >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.html >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.xml >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-diff.html (all changes >>> > inline) >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-rfcdiff.html (all changes >>> > side by side) >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-auth48diff.html (all >>> > AUTH48 changes inline) >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff1.html (XML >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff2.html >>> > >>> > Please note that we have updated the formatting and placement of the >>> > Contributors section (apologies for not catching that sooner). >>> > >>> > We'll await word from Mirja regarding other AUTH48 feedback and/or approval. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > RFC Editor/jm >>> > >>> > On 9/20/22 2:14 PM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: >>> > > Greetings, >>> > > >>> > > Replies inline >>> > > >>> > >> On 25 Aug 2022, at 20:21, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Authors, >>> > >> >>> > >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>> > >> >>> > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the >>> > >> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>> > > QUIC, application protocol mapping, deployment >>> > > >>> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: FYI, we have expanded TAPS in the following: >>> > >> >>> > >> Original: >>> > >> The IETF TAPS specifications [I-D.ietf-taps-arch] describe a system >>> > >> with a common API for multiple protocols. >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> The IETF Transport Services (TAPS) specifications [TAPS-ARCH] describe >>> > >> a system with a common API for multiple protocols. >>> > >> --> >>> > > This edit is fine >>> > > >>> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: We're having difficulty parsing the following sentence. Does rewriting the last part of the sentence improve readability? >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> In some cases, it might be sufficient to limit application data sent >>> > >> in 0-RTT to that which only causes actions at a server that are known >>> > >> to be free of lasting effect. >>> > >> >>> > >> Perhaps (clarifying that the data should not cause lasting effects): >>> > >> In some cases, it might be sufficient to limit the application data sent >>> > >> in 0-RTT to data that does not cause actions with lasting effects at a >>> > >> server. >>> > >> --> >>> > > The suggested edit is good. >>> > > >>> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: This is the one instance of "NAT address rebinding", whereas the other instances are simply "NAT rebinding". Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. >>> > >> >>> > >> Original: >>> > >> By using a connection ID, QUIC is designed to be robust to NAT address >>> > >> rebinding after a timeout. >>> > >> --> >>> > > Suggest cutting “address”: >>> > > >>> > > NEW: >>> > > >>> > > By using a connection ID, QUIC is designed to be robust to NAT >>> > > rebinding after a timeout. >>> > > >>> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: We found these sentences in the third paragraph difficult to parse because of the number of noun modifiers. >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> The size and rate of transport flow control credit updates can affect >>> > >> performance.... >>> > >> >>> > >> Some implementations might have independent transport-layer and >>> > >> application-layer receive buffers... >>> > >> >>> > >> However, a common flow control implementation technique is to extend >>> > >> credit... >>> > >> >>> > >> Perhaps (splitting apart the descriptions): >>> > >> The size and rate of updates to flow control credit can affect >>> > >> performance.... . >>> > >> >>> > >> Some implementations might have independent receive buffers at the >>> > >> transport layer and application layer.... >>> > >> >>> > >> However, a common implementation technique is to extend flow control >>> > >> credit... >>> > >> --> >>> > > All of these suggested edits are good. >>> > > >>> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5: Are there some words missing in the example given in the following sentence? >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> An application that uses QUIC and communicates a cumulative stream >>> > >> limit might require the connection to be closed before the limit is >>> > >> reached, e.g., to stop the server to perform scheduled maintenance. >>> > >> >>> > >> Perhaps (adding "in order"): >>> > >> An application that uses QUIC and communicates a cumulative stream >>> > >> limit might require the connection to be closed before the limit is >>> > >> reached, e.g., to stop the server in order to perform scheduled >>> > >> maintenance. >>> > >> --> >>> > > This suggested edit is good. >>> > > >>> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: We're having difficulty with the following sentence because we do not see "DATA frames" in RFC 9000. We do see MAX_DATA and MAX_STREAM_DATA frames, but Section 13 discusses STREAM frames. Also, should "packets ... frames" be "packets' ... frames"? Please let us know how we may update this sentence. >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> By default, many implementations will try to maximally pack QUIC >>> > >> packets DATA frames from one or more streams to minimize bandwidth >>> > >> consumption and computational costs (see Section 13 of [QUIC]). >>> > >> >>> > >> --> >>> > > I believe we misspelled “STREAM” here. >>> > > >>> > > NEW: >>> > > >>> > > By default, many implementations will try to pack STREAM frames from >>> > > from one or more streams into each QUIC packet, in order to minimize >>> > > bandwidth consumption and computational costs (see Section 13 of [QUIC]). >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 8: Does rewording the following sentence improve readability? >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> For applications with a fallback to TCP that do not already have an >>> > >> alternate mapping to UDP, usually the registration (if necessary) and >>> > >> use of the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP port already >>> > >> registered for the application is appropriate. >>> > >> >>> > >> Perhaps (making "application" single, more clearly stating what is usually appropriate): >>> > >> For an application with a fallback to TCP that does not already have an >>> > >> alternate mapping to UDP, it is usually appropriate to register (if >>> > >> necessary) and use of the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP >>> > >> port already registered for the application. >>> > >> --> >>> > > NEW: >>> > > >>> > > For an application with a fallback to TCP that does not already have an >>> > > alternate mapping to UDP, it is usually appropriate to register (if >>> > > necessary) and use the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP >>> > > port already registered for the application. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > (there’s a spurious “of”: “use of the UDP port…” -> “use the UDP port...”.) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1: Would you like to provide a reference for memcached? >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> For example, these source ports are associated with >>> > >> applications known to be vulnerable to reflection attacks often due >>> > >> to server misconfiguration: >>> > >> >>> > >> * port 53 - DNS [RFC1034] >>> > >> >>> > >> * port 123 - NTP [RFC5905] >>> > >> >>> > >> * port 1900 - SSDP [SSDP] >>> > >> >>> > >> * port 5353 - mDNS [RFC6762] >>> > >> >>> > >> * port 11211 - memcached >>> > >> --> >>> > > Nope, the port is registered with IANA without reference. However, the service name is “memcache”, not “memcached”, so let’s reference by service name. >>> > > >>> > >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.2: FYI, we replaced the CID acronym, which is not used elsewhere, with "Connection ID" for clarity. Please let us know if there are any objections. >>> > >> >>> > >> Original: >>> > >> Analysis of the lifetimes of six-tuples (source and destination >>> > >> addresses as well as the migrated CID) may expose these links anyway. >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> Analysis of the lifetimes of 6-tuples (source and destination >>> > >> addresses as well as the migrated Connection ID) may expose these >>> > >> links anyway. >>> > >> --> >>> > > This edit is good. >>> > > >>> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.2: Does removing redundant wording improve the readability of the following? >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> Conversely, in the opposite limit where every server handles multiple >>> > >> simultaneous migrations, even an exposed server mapping may be >>> > >> insufficient information. >>> > >> >>> > >> Perhaps: >>> > >> Conversely, when every server handles multiple >>> > >> simultaneous migrations, even an exposed server mapping may be >>> > >> insufficient information. >>> > >> --> >>> > > Yes, the suggested edit is good. >>> > > >>> > >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.3: RFC 5077 has been obsoleted by RFC 8446. How may we update the following cross reference? >>> > >> >>> > >> Original: >>> > >> Section 4 of [RFC5077] describes an example approach for constructing >>> > >> TLS resumption tickets that can be also applied for validation tokens, >>> > >> however, the use of more modern cryptographic algorithms is highly >>> > >> recommended. >>> > >> >>> > >> —> >>> > > I believe the right thing to do here is not to update the cross-reference, as we're pointing out that the >>> > > TLS session ticket example (removed from 8446 as far as I can tell) is useful guidance for building validation tokens. >>> > > >>> > > I would suggest some clarifying text here to note that we do, indeed, know that we're citing an obsolete RFC: >>> > > >>> > > NEW: >>> > > >>> > > The approach described in Section 4 of RFC5077 for constructing >>> > > TLS resumption tickets provides an example that can also be applied to >>> > > validation tokens. However, the use of more modern cryptographic algorithms >>> > > than those presented in this example is highly recommended. >>> > > >>> > >> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 16: Does the following rewording improve the readability of the sentence? >>> > >> >>> > >> Current: >>> > >> This document has no actions for IANA; however, note that Section 8 >>> > >> recommends that application bindings to QUIC for applications using >>> > >> TCP register UDP ports analogous to their existing TCP registrations. >>> > >> >>> > >> Perhaps: >>> > >> This document has no actions for IANA; however, note that Section 8 >>> > >> recommends that an application that has already registered a TCP port >>> > >> but wants to specify QUIC as a transport should register a UDP port >>> > >> analogous to their existing TCP registration. >>> > >> --> >>> > > Yes, this edit is good. >>> > > >>> > >> 14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology: We have made the following updates throughout the text. Please let us know if any changes are necessary. >>> > >> >>> > >> a) The following terms were used inconsistently. We have chosen the latter form: >>> > >> >>> > >> four-tuple / 4-tuple >>> > >> five-tuple / 5-tuple >>> > >> six-tuple / 6-tuple >>> > >> application level / application layer >>> > >> transport level / transport layer >>> > >> Zero RTT / 0-RTT >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> b) Although the following term was formatted consistently, we have updated it to match other RFCs: >>> > >> >>> > >> DiffServ / Diffserv (RFC 7657) >>> > >> --> >>> > > These edits are good. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. >>> > >> --> >>> > > Inclusive language checks are integrated into the CI pipeline used to build the document, and have addressed issues flagged by that check from time to time. A final check of the document revealed no issues. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Modulo changes in this message, I approve this RFC for publication. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, cheers, >>> > > >>> > > Brian >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> Thank you. >>> > >> >>> > >> RFC Editor/st/jm >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On 8/25/22 1:17 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> > >> >>> > >> Updated 2022/08/25 >>> > >> >>> > >> RFC Author(s): >>> > >> -------------- >>> > >> >>> > >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>> > >> >>> > >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>> > >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>> > >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>> > >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>> > >> >>> > >> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>> > >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>> > >> your approval. >>> > >> >>> > >> Planning your review >>> > >> --------------------- >>> > >> >>> > >> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>> > >> >>> > >> * RFC Editor questions >>> > >> >>> > >> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>> > >> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>> > >> follows: >>> > >> >>> > >> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>> > >> >>> > >> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>> > >> >>> > >> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>> > >> >>> > >> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>> > >> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>> > >> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>> > >> >>> > >> * Content >>> > >> >>> > >> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>> > >> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>> > >> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>> > >> - contact information >>> > >> - references >>> > >> >>> > >> * Copyright notices and legends >>> > >> >>> > >> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>> > >> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>> > >> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). >>> > >> >>> > >> * Semantic markup >>> > >> >>> > >> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>> > >> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>> > >> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>> > >> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>> > >> >>> > >> * Formatted output >>> > >> >>> > >> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>> > >> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>> > >> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>> > >> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Submitting changes >>> > >> ------------------ >>> > >> >>> > >> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>> > >> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >>> > >> include: >>> > >> >>> > >> * your coauthors >>> > >> >>> > >> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >>> > >> >>> > >> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>> > >> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>> > >> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>> > >> >>> > >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >>> > >> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>> > >> list: >>> > >> >>> > >> * More info: >>> > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>> > >> >>> > >> * The archive itself: >>> > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>> > >> >>> > >> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>> > >> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>> > >> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>> > >> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>> > >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >>> > >> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>> > >> >>> > >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>> > >> >>> > >> An update to the provided XML file >>> > >> — OR — >>> > >> An explicit list of changes in this format >>> > >> >>> > >> Section # (or indicate Global) >>> > >> >>> > >> OLD: >>> > >> old text >>> > >> >>> > >> NEW: >>> > >> new text >>> > >> >>> > >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>> > >> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>> > >> >>> > >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >>> > >> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >>> > >> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >>> > >> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Approving for publication >>> > >> -------------------------- >>> > >> >>> > >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>> > >> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>> > >> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Files >>> > >> ----- >>> > >> >>> > >> The files are available here: >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.xml >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.html >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.pdf >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt >>> > >> >>> > >> Diff file of the text: >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-diff.html >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> > >> >>> > >> Diff of the XML: >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff1.html >>> > >> >>> > >> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own >>> > >> diff files of the XML. >>> > >> >>> > >> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.original.v2v3.xml >>> > >> >>> > >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >>> > >> only: >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.form.xml >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Tracking progress >>> > >> ----------------- >>> > >> >>> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308 >>> > >> >>> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> > >> >>> > >> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> > >> >>> > >> RFC Editor >>> > >> >>> > >> -------------------------------------- >>> > >> RFC9308 (draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18) >>> > >> >>> > >> Title : Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol >>> > >> Author(s) : M. Kühlewind, B. Trammell >>> > >> WG Chair(s) : Matt Joras, Lucas Pardue >>> > >> >>> > >> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker >>> > >>>
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney