Authors, David’s and Jonathan’s approvals of the formatting have been noted. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729
Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 12, 2025, at 3:18 PM, Jonathan Hoyland <jonathan.hoyl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear Alanna, > I also approve. > Regards, > Jonathan > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, 21:55 David Oliver, <da...@guardianproject.info> wrote: > Alanna, I approve of the formatting as well as the content > > > David M. Oliver | da...@guardianproject.info | https://guardianproject.info | > @davidmoliver | +1 970 368 2366 > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:23 PM Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > Hi David, > > Thank you. Your approval has been noted: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 > > We ask that both David and Jonathan also review and approve of the formatting. > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/ap > > > On Feb 11, 2025, at 3:02 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.i...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Thanks Alanna. > > > > I updated our local copy to use the shorter IANA links per the style guide. > > I was then able to confirm that the TXT diff between our copy and yours is > > now empty. > > I also checked the formatting on other files and there were no surprises. > > > > You have my approval to publish. Do you also need other authors to > > reapprove or is one enough here? > > > > Thanks, > > David > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 2:46 PM Alanna Paloma > > <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > > 1) IANA registries. I see that the links to the registries no longer > > > include the anchor that points to the registry. Was that intentional? > > > > Yes, this was intentional. This update was made per guidance from IANA that > > that only the short version of the URL should be used. Please see the Web > > Portion of the Style Guide > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_iana_reg> and IANA’s > > Guidance for RFC Authors <https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration> > > for more information. > > > > > 2) The MASQUE-ORIGINAL reference was changed from > > > draft-schinazi-masque-00 to draft-schinazi-masque-02. Please revert to > > > draft-schinazi-masque-00. The goal here is to show the earliest prior > > > art, so we intentionally want the older version. -02 is particularly > > > wrong because the auth component had been removed at that point. > > > > We reverted this update to point to draft-schinazi-masque-00. > > > > ... > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.pdf > > > > Best regards, > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > On Feb 11, 2025, at 2:13 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.i...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alanna, > > > > > > I looked at the diff between the version we reviewed and the latest one, > > > and found some unexpected changes. > > > > > > 1) IANA registries. I see that the links to the registries no longer > > > include the anchor that points to the registry. Was that intentional? > > > > > > 2) The MASQUE-ORIGINAL reference was changed from > > > draft-schinazi-masque-00 to draft-schinazi-masque-02. Please revert to > > > draft-schinazi-masque-00. The goal here is to show the earliest prior > > > art, so we intentionally want the older version. -02 is particularly > > > wrong because the auth component had been removed at that point. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM Alanna Paloma > > > <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > Authors, > > > > > > We have noted Jonathan’s approval on the AUTH48 status page: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 > > > > > > As the content of the document has been approved, we now ask that each > > > author review and approve of the formatting in the output files below. > > > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.xml > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.txt > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.html > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.pdf > > > > > > Once we have receive approval of the formatting, we will move this > > > document forward in the publication process. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2025, at 8:00 AM, Jonathan Hoyland > > > > <jonathan.hoyl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Alanna, > > > > I've just gone through the document again, and you have my approval > > > > too. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, 16:32 Alanna Paloma, > > > > <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 > > > > > > > > We await Jonathan’s approval of the content. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 2025, at 7:56 AM, David Oliver <da...@guardianproject.info> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Wonderful. You have my approval on the recent updates on RFC9729. > > > > > > > > > > David M. Oliver | da...@guardianproject.info | > > > > > https://guardianproject.info | @davidmoliver | +1 970 368 2366 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:49 PM Alanna Paloma > > > > > <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files with your > > > > > additional tweaks and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 > > > > > > > > > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.md > > > > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-diff.html (comprehensive > > > > > text diff) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > > > > > text diff) > > > > > > > > > > (Note: We have adjusted the wrapping to now have a width of 80.) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdrfcdiff.html > > > > > (comprehensive md diff) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdauth48diff.html (AUTH48 > > > > > md diff) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdlastdiff.html (last > > > > > version to this one) > > > > > > > > > > We will now await approvals of the content from David M. Oliver and > > > > > Jonathan Hoyland. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2025, at 4:08 PM, David Schinazi > > > > > > <dschinazi.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alanna! > > > > > > > > > > > > I went through the document in detail, and I think the changes look > > > > > > great. I made three small tweaks to your version, and uploaded them > > > > > > here: > > > > > > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/03cd6dc3b6588b30a40ce74f59843ed96a15555c > > > > > > > > > > > > Apart from that, I think this is good to go. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doing the review in markdown made it incredibly seamless. I have a > > > > > > couple incredibly minor points about the markdown diff: > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdrfcdiff.html > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) it points out a change in the lines surrounding > > > > > > diagrams/sourcecode blocks: it says that "~~" was changed to "~~~" > > > > > > even though both versions contain "~~~". > > > > > > 2) it seems to be set to a column width of 78. That causes a few > > > > > > lines to wrap for documents where we use a width of 80 (which I > > > > > > think is the default?). > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 1:53 PM Alanna Paloma > > > > > > <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We see that the capitalization of "Key ID" is > > > > > > > inconsistent. Please let how we should update it. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the inconsistency is intentional: "key ID" refers to the > > > > > > > concept, whereas "Key ID" refers to the eponymous field in the > > > > > > > Key Exporter Context structure. Does that work or do you think it > > > > > > > reduces clarity? > > > > > > > > > > > > ) Thank you for clarifying. The reasoning makes sense, and it > > > > > > should be clear enough from the context within the document. We > > > > > > have left the capitalization as is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.md > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-diff.html > > > > > > (comprehensive text diff) > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-auth48diff.html > > > > > > (AUTH48 text diff) > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdrfcdiff.html > > > > > > (comprehensive md diff side-by-side) > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdauth48diff.html > > > > > > (AUTH48 md diff side-by-side) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 author of the content in the > > > > > > markdown prior to converting the markdown to RFCXML and asking each > > > > > > authors to review and approve the final files. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2025, at 7:43 PM, David Schinazi > > > > > > > <dschinazi.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi RFC Editor(s), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off, I really wanted to thank you for doing this AUTH48 in > > > > > > > markdown - it's a huge life improvement :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find answers to your questions inline below. Let me know > > > > > > > when you've incorporated those and I'll do a full pass of the > > > > > > > document as soon as I can in the next few days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:18 PM <rfc-edi...@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] FYI, we have added the following sentence to > > > > > > > Section 1.1 > > > > > > > ("Conventions and Definitions") in order to include a citation > > > > > > > for RFC 8792 in the text. Please let us know of any objections. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > > > Various examples in this document contain long lines that may > > > > > > > be folded, > > > > > > > as described in [RFC8792]. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, "Concealed HTTP > > > > > > > authentication scheme" and "Concealed authentication scheme" > > > > > > > appear to be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences > > > > > > > and let us know if/how they be made consistent. Some examples are > > > > > > > listed here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > When a client wishes to use the Concealed HTTP authentication > > > > > > > scheme > > > > > > > with a request, it SHALL compute the authentication proof > > > > > > > using a TLS > > > > > > > keying material exporter with the following parameters: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > If a frontend is configured to check the Concealed > > > > > > > authentication > > > > > > > scheme, it will parse the Authorization (or > > > > > > > Proxy-Authorization) > > > > > > > header field. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that the defining statement at the start of section 2 > > > > > > > <<This document defines the "Concealed" HTTP authentication > > > > > > > scheme.>> > > > > > > > should include "HTTP" to be extra clear when defining it. I'm > > > > > > > happy for all other uses to be consistent. > > > > > > > So maybe we make them all <<Concealed HTTP authentication > > > > > > > scheme>>? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review sourcecode types within the > > > > > > > markdown file, and let us know if they should be set and/or have > > > > > > > been set correctly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current list of preferred values for sourcecode types is > > > > > > > available at > > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. > > > > > > > If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel > > > > > > > free to > > > > > > > suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also > > > > > > > acceptable > > > > > > > to leave the sourcecode type not set. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They look correct to me. It might be useful to define a new type > > > > > > > for the QUIC presentation format given how common it's becoming > > > > > > > (since we have one for the TLS presentation format), but for this > > > > > > > document those can stay empty since it doesn't exist yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We see that the capitalization of "Key ID" is > > > > > > > inconsistent. Please let how we should update it. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the inconsistency is intentional: "key ID" refers to the > > > > > > > concept, whereas "Key ID" refers to the eponymous field in the > > > > > > > Key Exporter Context structure. Does that work or do you think it > > > > > > > reduces clarity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] As "Signature Algorithm" is being used in a > > > > > > > general way and not as a field name, may we make it lowercase in > > > > > > > this sentence? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > The encoding of the public key is determined by the Signature > > > > > > > Algorithm in use as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > > > The encoding of the public key is determined by the signature > > > > > > > algorithm in use as follows: > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, that one's not the field name so lowercase makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update "which" to "that" here? > > > > > > > It depends on the intended meaning, as noted below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > The public key is an RSAPublicKey structure > > > > > > > [PKCS1] encoded in DER [X.690]. BER encodings which are not > > > > > > > DER > > > > > > > MUST be rejected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps (restrictive "that", meaning some BER encodings): > > > > > > > The public key is an RSAPublicKey structure > > > > > > > [PKCS1] encoded in DER [X.690]. BER encodings that are not DER > > > > > > > MUST be rejected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or (nonrestrictive "which", meaning all BER encodings): > > > > > > > The public key is an RSAPublicKey structure > > > > > > > [PKCS1] encoded in DER [X.690]. BER encodings, which are not > > > > > > > DER, > > > > > > > MUST be rejected. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're correct, let's use "that" here. Some BER encodings are > > > > > > > DER, and those are valid and must not be rejected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] We having difficulty parsing the following > > > > > > > sentence. > > > > > > > Does the key ID authenticate or does the client? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > > > For example, the key ID "basement" authenticating using Ed25519 > > > > > > > [ED25519] could produce the following header field > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > > > For example, a client authenticating with the key ID "basement" > > > > > > > and using Ed25519 [ED25519] could produce the following header > > > > > > > field > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're correct that the key ID doesn't authenticate. However, > > > > > > > "authenticate" is somewhat annoying as a verb in that the concept > > > > > > > of "the client is proving to the server that it is who it says it > > > > > > > is" can be said as "the server authenticated the client" or "the > > > > > > > client authenticated to the server" - and not everyone agrees > > > > > > > that they're both valid. How about we sidestep the issue with > > > > > > > something like this: > > > > > > > <<For example, a client using the key ID "basement" and the > > > > > > > signature algorithm Ed25519 [ED25519] could produce the following > > > > > > > header field:>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] RFC 8941 has been obsoleted by RFC 9651. May we > > > > > > > replace RFC 8941 with RFC 9651? > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) <!-- [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. Updates of this > > > > > > > nature typically result in more precise language, which is > > > > > > > helpful for readers. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't find any instances of non inclusive language, but let me > > > > > > > know if you noticed any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] References. May we add the following URL to this > > > > > > > reference for the ease of the reader? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [X.690] ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding > > > > > > > Rules: > > > > > > > Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), > > > > > > > Canonical > > > > > > > Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding > > > > > > > Rules > > > > > > > (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X690, ISO/IEC > > > > > > > 8825-1:2021, > > > > > > > February 2021. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor/ap/jm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/31/25 2:14 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Updated 2025/01/31 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 .md 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-edi...@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 .md 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 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 > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This document is being edited in kramdown-rfc markdown. Once the > > > > > > > content > > > > > > > is approved, the markdown will be converted to RFCXML and > > > > > > > formatted as an > > > > > > > RFC. You will be asked to review and approve the XML and output > > > > > > > formats. > > > > > > > Your final approval means you approve both the content and format. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/rfc9729.md > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.html > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.pdf > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-diff.html > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-rfcdiff.html (side > > > > > > > by side) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff of the markdown: > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729-mdrfcdiff.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > RFC9729 (draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-12) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Title : The Concealed HTTP Authentication Scheme > > > > > > > Author(s) : D. Schinazi, D. Oliver, J. Hoyland > > > > > > > WG Chair(s) : Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly > > > > > > > Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
