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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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