Hi, Eric. We will wait for any further changes before noting your approval.
Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Apr 10, 2025, at 10:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > I approve publication once the data is adjusted. > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 9:36 AM Lynne Bartholomew > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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
