Hi, Eric. Sorry -- does this mean that a new XML file is available somewhere? If yes, please provide a pointer to it.
Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Apr 9, 2025, at 9:21 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > The PR was merged last week. > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 9:18 AM Lynne Bartholomew > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi, Sean and Eric. > > On March 26, Eric let us know that an updated XML was available at > <https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/blob/main/rfc9750-draft.xml>. We > fetched the March 26 XML, created the output files, and posted them on March > 31 (10:32 AM PST). We had some follow-up questions, and Eric replied (also > March 31) with "I have created a PR to address your comments and detailed how > they were addressed." We also asked for and received AD approval re. some of > the changes. > > It looks like we now need the following: > > * The latest XML file from Eric (incorporating the March 31 updates), so that > we can create and post the latest output files > > * Approvals from authors (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750) if > no further updates are needed > > Thank you! > > RFC Editor/lb > > > > On Apr 9, 2025, at 8:46 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > Lynne, > > > > Can you advise on the status? When should we expect "final" versions of the > > document to be up for review/approval? > > > > -Ekr > > >> On Apr 3, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > >> > >> Are we waiting on a new version that incorporates ekr’s updates? > >> > >> spt > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 8:32 AM Lynne Bartholomew > >>> <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>> Hi, Paul. So noted: > >>> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 > >>> > >>> Thank you! > >>> > >>> RFC Editor/lb > >>> > >>> > On Apr 2, 2025, at 5:23 AM, Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Approved as AD - these were brought to attention of the WG. > >>> > > >>> > Paul > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 2:13 PM Lynne Bartholomew > >>> > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>> > Hi, Eric. Thanks for the quick updates! > >>> > > >>> > RFC Editor/lb > >>> > > >>> > > On Mar 31, 2025, at 10:53 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > I have created a PR to address your comments and detailed how they > >>> > > were addressed. > >>> > > > >>> > > https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/332 > >>> > > > >>> > > > 1. Should 'rotation of "last resort" KeyPackage.' be 'rotation of > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > "last resort" KeyPackage.'? > >>> > > > >>> > > Yes, I have changed it. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 2. Apologies for missing this earlier: Should "ciphersuite" be > >>> > > > "cipher > >>> > > > suite" in running text, per usage in RFC 9420, or OK to leave as > >>> > > > is? > >>> > > > >>> > > Yes, I have changed it. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 3. Regarding "A Delivery Service (DS), which can receive and > >>> > > > distribute messages between group members. In the case of > >>> > > > group > >>> > > > messaging, the delivery service ...": Would you like "delivery > >>> > > > service" to be "Delivery Service" (which we still see used > >>> > > > several times elsewhere) or "DS"? (We also see "Authentication > >>> > > > Service" spelled out in Sections 8.4.3 and 8.4.3.1.) > >>> > > > >>> > > I have changed "delivery service" to "DS". I changed to AS in > >>> > > 8.4.3.1 but I think it makes the most sense as-is in the first > >>> > > use in 8.4.3. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 4. Should "prevents selective attack on" be "prevents selective > >>> > > > attacks on"? > >>> > > > >>> > > It is correct as is. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 5. Should "Handshake or application message" be "handshake or > >>> > > > application message", per "handshake" as used elsewhere? > >>> > > > >>> > > Fixed. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 6. As we are now following CMOS guidance to initial-capitalize > >>> > > > prepositions of five or more letters in titles, would you > >>> > > > consider > >>> > > > changing "against" to "Against" in "No Protection against Replay > >>> > > > by > >>> > > > Insiders"? > >>> > > > >>> > > Changed. > >>> > > > >>> > > -Ekr > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:32 AM Lynne Bartholomew > >>> > > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>> > > Hi, Eric and *AD (Paul or Deb). > >>> > > > >>> > > Eric, thank you for making the additional updates and for the latest > >>> > > XML file! We have follow-up items for you and for the AD, as flagged > >>> > > below. > >>> > > > >>> > > * AD: It is difficult for us to determine whether or not some of the > >>> > > new updates to this document might be considered "beyond editorial". > >>> > > Please review the following, and let us know any concerns. > >>> > > > >>> > > 1. update to Section 2.1, Paragraph 3 (re. LeafNode) > >>> > > 2. updated "... used only once, and init_key ..." sentence in Section > >>> > > 5.1 > >>> > > 3. new Recommendation near the end of Section 5.1 > >>> > > 4. update to the "A policy for when two credentials" bullet in > >>> > > Section 7 > >>> > > 5. removal of the last paragraph of Section 8.1.4 > >>> > > 6. change from "to attack forward security" to "to attack > >>> > > post-compromise security" in Section 8.4.2 > >>> > > 7. new Section 8.6 ("No Protection against Replay by Insiders") > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > Eric: A few follow-up items for you: > >>> > > > >>> > > 1. Should 'rotation of "last resort" KeyPackage.' be 'rotation of the > >>> > > "last resort" KeyPackage.'? > >>> > > > >>> > > 2. Apologies for missing this earlier: Should "ciphersuite" be > >>> > > "cipher suite" in running text, per usage in RFC 9420, > >>> > > or OK to leave as is? > >>> > > > >>> > > 3. Regarding "A Delivery Service (DS), which can receive and > >>> > > distribute messages > >>> > > between group members. In the case of group messaging, the > >>> > > delivery service ...": > >>> > > Would you like "delivery service" to be "Delivery Service" (which > >>> > > we still see used several times elsewhere) or "DS"? > >>> > > (We also see "Authentication Service" spelled out in Sections 8.4.3 > >>> > > and 8.4.3.1.) > >>> > > > >>> > > 4. Should "prevents selective attack on" be "prevents selective > >>> > > attacks on"? > >>> > > > >>> > > 5. Should "Handshake or application message" be "handshake or > >>> > > application message", per "handshake" as used elsewhere? > >>> > > > >>> > > 6. As we are now following CMOS guidance to initial-capitalize > >>> > > prepositions of five or more letters in titles, > >>> > > would you consider changing "against" to "Against" in "No > >>> > > Protection against Replay by Insiders"? > >>> > > > >>> > > We have posted the latest files here. Please refresh your browser: > >>> > > > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.txt > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.pdf > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.html > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.xml > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-diff.html > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-rfcdiff.html (side by > >>> > > side) > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-auth48diff.html > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>> > > (side by side) > >>> > > > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff1.html > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff2.html > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks again! > >>> > > > >>> > > RFC Editor/lb > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mar 26, 2025, at 1:04 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I have now completed my review and made final edits. All open > >>> > > > issues for this version are closed. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The updated XML can be found at: > >>> > > > https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/blob/main/rfc9750-draft.xml > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -Ekr > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 8:42 AM Lynne Bartholomew > >>> > > > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>> > > > Hi, Eric. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Many thanks for addressing our questions and making the file > >>> > > > updates! We'll look forward to hearing from you after you've done > >>> > > > your final review. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > RFC Editor/lb > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Mar 24, 2025, at 2:10 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Update: > >>> > > > > I have now gone through and addressed all the RPC comments and > >>> > > > > updated the relevant XML and md accordingly. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > My next step will be to actually read the document top to bottom > >>> > > > > for final review. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > -Ekr > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 8:59 AM Lynne Bartholomew > >>> > > > > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>> > > > > Hi, Eric. So noted. Thank you! > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > RFC Editor/lb > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Mar 3, 2025, at 6:03 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > I have created issues corresponding to the inline RPC > >>> > > > > > comments/questions and have tagged Lynn in them so she can see > >>> > > > > > progress. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > -Ekr > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:51 AM Jean Mahoney > >>> > > > > > <jmaho...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>> > > > > > Eric, > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On 2/25/25 3:14 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>> > > > > > > Update: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I have backported the copy-edit changes I approve of and > >>> > > > > > > reverted the > >>> > > > > > > rest in the XML, which can be found here: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/273 > >>> > > > > > > <https://github.com/ > >>> > > > > > > mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/273> > >>> > > > > > > https://github.com/ekr/mls-architecture/blob/merge_rpc_comments/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > draft.xml <https://github.com/ekr/mls-architecture/blob/ > >>> > > > > > > merge_rpc_comments/rfc9750-draft.xml> > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I will next go through the RPC's substantive questions and > >>> > > > > > > file GitHub > >>> > > > > > > issues for each of them so we can work through them. Is there > >>> > > > > > > someone > >>> > > > > > > you would like tagged on these issues? > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Lynne Bartholomew will be the RFC Editor handling this > >>> > > > > > document's > >>> > > > > > AUTH48. Her GitHub username is lbartholomew-rpc. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Best regards, > >>> > > > > > Jean > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -Ekr > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 9:46 AM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Per private communication with Alan: a...@duric.net > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:a...@duric.net> > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:50 AM Paul Wouters > >>> > > > > > > <paul.wout...@aiven.io > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > datatracker says alan.du...@globalipsound.com > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:alan.du...@globalipsound.com>, added to CC: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Paul > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:47 AM Jean Mahoney > >>> > > > > > > <jmaho...@staff.rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:jmaho...@staff.rfc- > >>> > > > > > > editor.org>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Hi Ekr, > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On 2/24/25 8:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 4:12 PM Jean Mahoney > >>> > > > > > > <jmaho...@staff.rfc- > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org <http://editor.org> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:jmaho...@staff.rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:jmaho...@staff.rfc-editor.org>>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Hi Ekr, > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > On 2/24/25 5:30 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > This document was prepared in markdown, > >>> > > > > > > so it > >>> > > > > > > would be much more > >>> > > > > > > > > convenient to do > >>> > > > > > > > > the editorial phase of auth48 in > >>> > > > > > > markdown rather > >>> > > > > > > than in XML, as I > >>> > > > > > > > > understand has been > >>> > > > > > > > > done for a number of recent documents. I > >>> > > > > > > understand that a fair > >>> > > > > > > > amount > >>> > > > > > > > > of work has > >>> > > > > > > > > already happened here, but is there a > >>> > > > > > > possibility > >>> > > > > > > of getting a > >>> > > > > > > > copy of > >>> > > > > > > > > the markdown > >>> > > > > > > > > with just the copy edit changes? > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > [JM] As draft-ietf-mls-architecture is a > >>> > > > > > > long > >>> > > > > > > document (41 pages PDF), > >>> > > > > > > > it would be time consuming to port the > >>> > > > > > > edits into > >>> > > > > > > markdown at this time. > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Indeed. I've made a repo for the XML [0]. It > >>> > > > > > > will take me > >>> > > > > > > some time to > >>> > > > > > > > backport the changes to the .md file and > >>> > > > > > > provide updated XML. > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > [JM] Understood, and the RPC is aiming to accept > >>> > > > > > > md as a > >>> > > > > > > submission > >>> > > > > > > format in the future. > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Is there another address for Alan Duric? > >>> > > > > > > a...@wire.com > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:a...@wire.com> bounced. > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Best regards, > >>> > > > > > > Jean > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > -Ekr > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > [0] https://github.com/ekr/rfc9750 > >>> > > > > > > <https://github.com/ > >>> > > > > > > ekr/rfc9750> <https://github.com/ekr/rfc9750 > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > github.com/ekr/rfc9750>> > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > It would be much easier to start edits in > >>> > > > > > > markdown in > >>> > > > > > > a future > >>> > > > > > > > document. > >>> > > > > > > > If you have another markdown file that > >>> > > > > > > will be > >>> > > > > > > entering the queue soon, > >>> > > > > > > > please let us know, and we can provide an > >>> > > > > > > updated > >>> > > > > > > markdown file at the > >>> > > > > > > > beginning of AUTH48 as part of one of our > >>> > > > > > > process > >>> > > > > > > experiments. > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Thanks and best regards, > >>> > > > > > > > RFC Editor/jm > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > -Ekr > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 3:16 PM > >>> > > > > > > <rfc-editor@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >>> > > > > > > > <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:rfc- > >>> > > > > > > edi...@rfc-editor.org>> <mailto:rfc- <mailto:rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:rfc- <mailto:rfc->> > >>> > > > > > > > > edi...@rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:editor@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > editor.org> <mailto:edi...@rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:edi...@rfc-editor.org>>>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Updated 2025/02/24 > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > 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/ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/> > >>> > > > > > > > faq/ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/ > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/faq/>> > >>> > > > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/ > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/faq/> > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > <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 <https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > trustee.ietf.org/license-info > >>> > > > > > > <http://trustee.ietf.org/ > >>> > > > > > > license-info>> <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > trustee.ietf.org/license-info <http:// > >>> > > > > > > trustee.ietf.org/license-info> > >>> > > > > > > <http://trustee.ietf.org/ > >>> > > > > > > license- <http://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 > >>> > > > > > > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary <http:// > >>> > > > > > > authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>> <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary> <http:// > >>> > > > > > > authors.ietf.org/ <http://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 > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:rfc- > >>> > > > > > > edi...@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:rfc- > >>> > > > > > > editor@rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org <http://editor.org>> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > editor.org <mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > edi...@rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto: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 > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org <http://editor.org>> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc->> > >>> > > > > > > > > editor.org <http://editor.org> > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <http://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/ > >>> > > > > > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf- > >>> > > > > > > announce/> <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/>> > >>> > > > > > > > > yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > mailarchive.ietf.org/ > >>> > > > > > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/> > >>> > > > > > > > arch/msg/ > >>> > > > > > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ > >>> > > > > > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > * The archive itself: > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ > >>> > > > > > > auth48archive/ > >>> > > > > > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ > >>> > > > > > > auth48archive/> <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ <http:// > >>> > > > > > > mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/> > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ <http:// > >>> > > > > > > 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 > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org <http://editor.org>> > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>> > > > > > > > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > >>> > > > > > > <mailto: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/rfc9750.xml > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.xml> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc- <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.xml > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750.xml>> <https://www.rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc- <https://www.rfc->> > >>> > > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.xml > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750.xml> <http://editor.org/authors/ > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > editor.org/authors/> > >>> > > > > > > > rfc9750.xml>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.html > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.html> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc- <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.html > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750.html>> <https://www.rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc- <https://www.rfc->> > >>> > > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.html <http:// > >>> > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.html> > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/authors/ > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/authors/> > >>> > > > > > > > rfc9750.html>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.pdf > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.pdf> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc- <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.pdf > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750.pdf>> <https://www.rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc- <https://www.rfc->> > >>> > > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.pdf > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750.pdf> <http://editor.org/authors/ > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > editor.org/authors/> > >>> > > > > > > > rfc9750.pdf>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.txt > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750.txt> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc- <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.txt > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750.txt>> <https://www.rfc- > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc- <https://www.rfc->> > >>> > > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750.txt > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750.txt> <http://editor.org/authors/ > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > editor.org/authors/> > >>> > > > > > > > rfc9750.txt>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > diff.html > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > diff.html> <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-diff.html > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-diff.html>> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-diff.html > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-diff.html> > >>> > > > > > > <http://www.rfc- <http://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750-diff.html > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > authors/rfc9750-diff.html>>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > rfcdiff.html > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > rfcdiff.html> <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-rfcdiff.html <http:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-rfcdiff.html>> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-rfcdiff.html > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-rfcdiff.html> > >>> > > > > > > <http://www.rfc- <http://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750-rfcdiff.html > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750-rfcdiff.html>>> (side > >>> > > > > > > by side) > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > xmldiff1.html > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > xmldiff1.html> > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > xmldiff1.html > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750- > >>> > > > > > > xmldiff1.html>> <https:// > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff1.html > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff1.html> > >>> > > > > > > <http://www.rfc- <http://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff1.html > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff1.html>>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > >>> > > > > > > > > ----------------- > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of > >>> > > > > > > your > >>> > > > > > > document are here: > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 > >>> > > > > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9750> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc- <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > > editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/auth48/ > >>> > > > > > > rfc9750>> <https://www.rfc- <https://www.rfc-> > >>> > > > > > > <https:// > >>> > > > > > > www.rfc- <https://www.rfc->> > >>> > > > > > > > > editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 > >>> > > > > > > <http://editor.org/ > >>> > > > > > > auth48/rfc9750> <http://editor.org/auth48/rfc9750 > >>> > > > > > > <http:// > >>> > > > > > > editor.org/auth48/rfc9750>>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any > >>> > > > > > > questions. > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > > > > > RFC 9750 > >>> > > > > > > (draft-ietf-mls-architecture-15) > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Title : The Messaging > >>> > > > > > > Layer > >>> > > > > > > Security (MLS) > >>> > > > > > > > Architecture > >>> > > > > > > > > Author(s) : B. Beurdouche, > >>> > > > > > > E. Rescorla, > >>> > > > > > > E. Omara, S. > >>> > > > > > > > Inguva, > >>> > > > > > > > > A. Duric > >>> > > > > > > > > WG Chair(s) : Nick Sullivan, > >>> > > > > > > Sean Turner > >>> > > > > > > > > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul > >>> > > > > > > Wouters > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
