Hi, Eric and coauthors. Eric, thanks for the pointer to the latest XML file.
Please note that in order to avoid any mismatches between your GitHub repository and our copies of the files, we will wait until we prepare this document for publication before updating the publication-month entry. The latest files are posted 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-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9750-xmldiff2.html Authors, please let us know whether you approve this document in its current form or additional changes are needed. Thanks again! RFC Editor/lb > On Apr 9, 2025, at 10:38 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > It's in the GitHub repository in the same place as before: > https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/blob/main/rfc9750-draft.xml > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 9:54 AM Lynne Bartholomew > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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
