jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
12.3. A new group can be formed from a subset of an existing group's <del> members, using the same parameters as the old group.  The creator of the group indicates this situation by including a PreSharedKey of type "resumption" with usage "branch" in the Welcome message that creates the branched subgroup. </del> <ins> members, using the same parameters as the old group. A member can create a sub-group by performing the following steps: Determine a subset of existing members that should be a part of the sub-group. Create a new tree for the sub-group by fetching a new KeyPackage for each existing member that should be included in the sub-group. Create a Welcome message that includes a PreSharedKey of type "resumption" with usage "branch". </ins> A client receiving a Welcome including a PreSharedKey of type "resumption" with usage "branch" MUST verify that the new group

Related discussion:
text: But it's tricky, since we're dealing with public key pairs that the creator of the new group doesn't know the private keys for. If we were only using HPKE schemes that support updateable public key encryption, the creator of the new group could indeed update the key in the existing group and send the "delta" encrypted to each corresponding member (which would still represent an overhead, but we might be able to optimize this somehow). This is similar to the RTreeKEM mechanism that NAME et al. proposed at some point. To go all the way here, we'd have to do the same for the public key material in the credentials as well, which is not something we had considered before. It would be a new primitive, something like an updateable signature scheme? Probably something to consider for HPKE/MLS 2.0. We could also allow the re-use of LeadNodes for this particular case. It would be the simpler solution and I don't think it would be catastrophic, since we have to assume that LeafNode (or KeyPackage) key material is re-used in the "last resort" scenario anyway, but this would definitely be something we should discuss on the mailing list, as it would break a pretty basic assumption we've made until now.
Just catching up on this. NAME nice catch here. It seems like we have two options here: Require new KeyPackages (as in ) Invent some way to make a new group based on LeafNodes alone I probably agree that we should do (1) in the short term, but (2) also has some appeal -- it doesn't feel right to require new KeyPackages for folks you're already in touch with -- despite it probably being more spec text. So here's a sketch of (2) in the interest of completeness. Suppose we defined a message of the following form: ... which would pretty closely parallel to Commit. You would send it in MLSMessage and require a in MLSMessageAuth. Where Commit instructs the recipient to create a new epoch from the current one within the same group, Branch would instruct the recipient to create a new epoch that is the first epoch of a new group. In both cases, you would form an epoch / GroupContext as specified, then use the to ratchet into the new epoch.
Code change:
12.3. A new group can be formed from a subset of an existing group's <del> members, using the same parameters as the old group.  The creator of the group indicates this situation by including a PreSharedKey of type "resumption" with usage "branch" in the Welcome message that creates the branched subgroup. </del> <ins> members, using the same parameters as the old group. A member can create a sub-group by performing the following steps: Determine a subset of existing members that should be a part of the sub-group. Create a new tree for the sub-group by fetching a new KeyPackage for each existing member that should be included in the sub-group. Create a Welcome message that includes a PreSharedKey of type "resumption" with usage "branch". </ins> A client receiving a Welcome including a PreSharedKey of type "resumption" with usage "branch" MUST verify that the new group

Related discussion:
text: I'm pretty sure that would work and have the expected security properties, though obviously formal analysis would be appreciated. The main awkardness that occurs to me is that any members joining after the branch would have to provide new key packages. And obviously, it would require a fair bit more spec text. All that said, though, the exercise of working all that out has increased my impression that we should do (1) for now. If we want something like (2) later, it can be done pretty cleanly in an extension.
Fixed by
Well put!
Code change:
The COSE_encrypt structure for the recipient is organized as follows: <del> The 'protected', 'aad', and 'recipients' fields MUST be null. </del> <ins> The 'protected', 'aad', and 'recipients' fields MUST be nil. </ins> The plain text to be encrypted is the key from next layer down (usually the content layer).

Related discussion:
text: The document is updated to use the CDDL grammer from the latest version (-05) Fixed a couple of small errors where my thinking and my text did not match.
Code change:
9. <ins> This protocol defines new HTTP header fields in iana.header.fields. New link relation types are identified using the URNs defined in iana.urns. 9.1. HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers" registry maintained at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message- headers/>. This document defines the following HTTP header fields, so their associated registry entries shall be added according to the permanent registrations below (see RFC3864): The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force". 9.2. </ins> This document registers three URNs for use in identifying link relation types.  These are added to a new "Web Push Identifiers" registry according to the procedures in Section 4 of RFC3553; the

Related discussion:
text: This is a work in progress, but ready for an initial review. I will add more commits to the branch for dealing with IANA registration of the header field. I also need to do some massaging of Section 7.2 to account for changes there. I'll have a follow-up pull request that deals with learning the server TTL. I think that the simplest thing to do would be to have the server echo the header field, using a lower value if it doesn't support it. Application servers can discover the maximum by sending a large value, like . The alternative is a declarative push service policy, but I want to encourage an adaptive policy with respect to TTL.
An alternative to echoing the TTL is just using the header field, as is currently described. I think that might actually be sufficient. That still leaves user agents unable to determine whether they need a full resync though. We need something for .
Looking at the semantics of and in relation to and , I think that it would be unwise to use them here. Current plan is to echo .
It was less clear that this was needed than was, but the idea is that it would be good for a user agent (or maybe an application server too) to be able to learn the maximum TTL that a push service was willing to maintain.
Discussed today: conclusion was to have subscriptions expire if the server is unwilling to maintain them over a long period of inactivity.
It should be fine if we let subscriptions expire if the server is unwilling to maintain them over a long period of inactivity.
There is a related failure case in the current draft related to acknowledgements: The push server MUST push a response with a status code of 5XX (TBD) if the user agent fails to acknowledge the receipt of the push message or the push server fails to deliver the message prior to its expiration.
Discussed. Discovery of maximum TTL is not required at this time.
This is just for the request from the application server to the push service.
Code change:
establishing UDP relay candidates using TURN over TCP to connect to their respective relay servers. <del> Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking. </del> <ins> Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and the peer may result in more performance problems than using UDP, e.g. due to head of line blocking. </ins> ICE-TCP candidates RFC6544 MUST be supported; this may allow applications to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across

Related discussion:
text: reformulated the TCP point, addressed security with a reference to -qos.
From Ben Campbell's review:
Second point is fixed by . I'm not sure the third point is an improvement.
SSL is used exactly once, as part of the acronym "TURN/SSL". This is also the first mention of TURN, but the second was much more convenient to attach the expansion to. Given that it was so awkward to attach them, I included a new section listing the "used protocols" instead.
From Magnus Westerlund in IETF LC: Section 8.1: [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness", draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice- dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), February 2015. Can be updated as this is now an WG item in ICE.
Updated in
Fixed by
I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It is in good shape and I have requested the last call. While the last call is ongoing, I would like to double-check that this document (particularly Section 4) raises no new security considerations that should be documented in Section 6. I'm wondering if there are scenarios where a malicious application could try to game the priority scheme to some ill effect? draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos talks a bit about this, so I'm wondering if anything needs to be said here. And I found a couple of nits to be resolved together with any LC comments: Sec 3.2 - Please update the citation to point to draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-02. Sec 3.4 - "Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking." This is awkwardly phrased. I would suggest something like "Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and its peer may result in more performance problems (due to head-of-line blocking) than using UDP."
Code change:
establishing UDP relay candidates using TURN over TCP to connect to their respective relay servers. <del> Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking. </del> <ins> Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and the peer may result in more performance problems than using UDP, e.g. due to head of line blocking. </ins> ICE-TCP candidates RFC6544 MUST be supported; this may allow applications to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across

Related discussion:
text: And one bit I left out — if text is to be added to reference draft-ietf-rtcweb-return, that should be done together with addressing nits and LC comments.
There seems no consensus to add RETURN, so I'm skipping this for now.
Code change:
QUIC begins every connection in slow start with the congestion window set to an initial value.  Endpoints SHOULD use an initial congestion window of 10 times the maximum datagram size (max_datagram_size), <del> limited to the larger of 14720 bytes or twice the maximum datagram size.  This follows the analysis and recommendations in RFC6928, increasing the byte limit to account for the smaller 8-byte overhead of UDP compared to the 20-byte overhead for TCP. </del> <ins> while limiting the window to the larger of 14720 bytes or twice the maximum datagram size.  This follows the analysis and recommendations in RFC6928, increasing the byte limit to account for the smaller 8-byte overhead of UDP compared to the 20-byte overhead for TCP. </ins> If the maximum datagram size changes during the connection, the initial congestion window SHOULD be recalculated with the new size.

Related discussion:
text: Éric Vyncke said:
I think the ambiguity is whether the "limited to" is saying: the maximum datagram size is no more than twice the maximum datagram size (which is nonsensical) the initial congestion window is min(10maxdatagramsize, max(14720 bytes, 2maxdatagramsize)) Given that one of the possible interpretations is logically inconsistent, the other one must be correct. I'm not sure how to make this sentence clearer except through pseudo-code. Looking at the pseudo-code, there isn't any -- kInitialWindow is declared to be a constant, value defined by this text, but the definition of this constant is given in terms of a variable (maxdatagramsize). Maybe kInitialWindow should become a variable itself, and then have pseudo-code with the max/min relationship added to B.3?
This is clearer; thanks.
Code change:
1.1. <del> The terminology from RFC7252 and STD94 applies.  Readers are also expected to be familiar with the terminology from RFC7807. </del> <ins> The terminology from RFC7252, STD94, and RFC8610 applies; in particular CBOR diagnostic notation is defined in STD94 and RFC8610. Readers are also expected to be familiar with the terminology from RFC7807. </ins> In this document, the structure of data is specified in CDDL RFC8610 RFC9165.

Related discussion:
text: Start collecting changes from AD review
Comment by NAME : /example value 4711 not actually registered like this:/ ~~~ I don't get the sentence above - if this is to highlight that this is an example and that the value 4711 is not actually registered, I think this is redundant (and you could also add that in the Figure caption rather than in the example's text).
See : The danger that people are just blindly copying an example is just too high. So we would prefer to keep this redundant comment in. We could improve the wording of the comment.
Comment by NAME : Please explicitly state that the example (or examples if you add one in ) uses CBOR diagnostic notation.
Fixed in .
Closed by 7463ce1
Code change:
contained within the RendezvousDone<> Event, and is ready to use as soon as it is passed to the application via the Event. <del> An RendezvousError occurs either when the Preconnection cannot be fulfilled for listening, when the Local Endpoint or Remote Endpoint cannot be resolved, when no transport-layer connection can be established to the Remote Endpoint, or when the application is prohibited from rendezvous by policy. </del> <ins> An RendezvousError occurs either when the Properties and Security Parameters of the Preconnection cannot be fulfilled for rendezvous or cannot be reconciled with the Local and/or Remote Endpoints, when the Local Endpoint or Remote Endpoint cannot be resolved, when no transport-layer connection can be established to the Remote Endpoint, or when the application is prohibited from rendezvous by policy. </ins> When using some NAT traversal protocols, e.g., Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) RFC5245, it is expected that the

Related discussion:
text: In the "Specifying Endpoints" section, added a reference to the Selection Property that does a similar thing but with more fine-grained control. It wasn't clear to me what is the best place to add this, so I put it right below the first example of specifying an interface name for the Local Endpoint to say that you can also do it differently. If you have better suggestions, please let me know. To the ListenError and RendezvousError, I added text mentioning the "reconcile Endpoints and Properties" pitfall. I think this is probably more general, i.e., there might be more sources of errors than just local interface, so I kept it generic.
For Local Address Preference we only have the option to prefer stable or temporary. However, I guess we would also need a way to e.g. specify that stable is required, no?
Is this addressed by PR ?
I don't think so.
When reading the current API draft, I was wondering the following: If an application wants to specify one or multiple local network interfaces, it can either set the Local Endpoint(s) or it can set the "Interface Instance or Type" Selection Property. I think both ways are valid and should exist, but I'm wondering if we should specify anything on the interaction of these two ways to do a similar thing. For example, should we explicitly mention the Selection Property in Section 5.1 ("Specifying Endpoints"), to make readers aware that there is a "better" way to do this, which allows more flexibility? Also, if an application specifies conflicting things, I guess this leads to an InitiateError, ListenError, or RendezvousError. Our current text already says this for the InitiateError: But should we make this particular issue more explicit here and/or should we add it for the ListenError or RendezvousError?
I think so, yes! Regarding the error in case of a conflict: I think so, yes - to all your questions: make it more explicit, state it in the description of both the ListenError and RendezvousError. Just my 2 cents
Thank you - works for me!
Code change:
for a human user to navigate to.  If the user chooses to complete this challenge (by visiting the website and completing its instructions), the client indicates this by sending a simple <del> acknowledgement response to the server. The string "oob-01" </del> <ins> acknowledgement response to the server.  The payload of this response is an empty JSON object ("{}", or "e30" base64url-encoded). </ins> On receiving a response, the server MUST verify that the value of the "type" field is "oob-01".  Otherwise, the steps the server takes to

Related discussion:
text: Addresses Martin Stiemerling's TSV-ART review
Merging based on NAME review
On the mailing list, Rifaat Shekh-Yusuf pointed out these issues: Section 7.3.5, first paragraph, second line: A "bind" word is missing between the words "to" and "an" Section 7.4.1, second paragraph, second sentence: "case" should be "cases". When the server builds the authorization object, the document is stating that the response would include "challenges" and "combinations". Remove the "combinations" as it is not being used. Section 7.5.1, the Request URIs in the examples: Should not this be /acme/authz/1234/0?
In "Responding to challenges," we use the term "response fields." These fields are defined by each challenge type, but are not described as "response fields" there. We should add a heading describing them as such in the challenge type definitions.
The other challenges don't expect you to post a payload containing a type field, so it's inconsistent for OOB-01 to do so. It should just take an empty object "{}" as its payload.
This seems fine. It seems to be protected from replay by the and parameters. I think we're OK leaving the challenge name at "oob-01", since this isn't a breaking change.
Code change:
<del> DNS Queries over HTTPS </del> <ins> DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH) </ins> draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https Abstract <del> This document describes how to run DNS service over HTTP (DOH) using https:// URIs. </del> <ins> This document describes how to make DNS queries over HTTPS. </ins> 1. This document defines a specific protocol for sending DNS RFC1035 <del> queries and getting DNS responses over HTTP RFC7540 using https:// </del> <ins> queries and getting DNS responses over HTTP RFC7540 using https URIs </ins> (and therefore TLS RFC5246 security for integrity and confidentiality).  Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into a HTTP exchange.

Related discussion:
text: The "using https:// URIs" part is just odd. Easier to simply state that this uses HTTPS at this level. Also, if the concept of a DNS service evolves to encompass other types of exchange than simple request-response, then "run DNS service" won't be accurate.
I added "DOH" to the title because it was now being removed from the Abstract.
Code change:
applications written to a single API to make use of transport protocols in terms of the features they provide. <del> A unified interface to datagram and connection-oriented transports, allowing use of a common API for connection- establishment and closing. </del> <ins> A unified interface to datagram and stream-oriented transports, allowing use of a common API for connection establishment and closing. </ins> Message-orientation, as opposed to stream-orientation, using application-assisted framing and deframing where the underlying

Related discussion:
text: Interface, Section 2, "A unified interface to datagram and connection-oriented transports, allowing use of a common API for connection-establishment and closing". Should this be "…to datagram and stream-oriented transports"? At what point do we explain that and are also used for connectionless protocols? This change would finesse the question here, leaving it for Section 3, or we can restructure the draft to clarify earlier.
Yes to (1): Datagram protocols can be connection-oriented or not; however the point here seems to be either: /interface to datagram and stream-oriented transports/ or /interface to both connection-less and connection-oriented transports/ ... I'd favour the first, it's clear enough and doesn't use terms that we later re-use. Also to (2): I think we could insert a specific sentence after: " A Connection represents an instance of a transport Protocol Stack on which data can be sent to and/or received from a Remote Endpoint (i.e., depending on the kind of transport, connections can be bi-directional or unidirectional). " That explicitly says something like: "This connections are presently consistently to the application, irrespective of whether the underlying transport is connection-less and connection-oriented."
Code change:
Replace the IP address of the ICE candidate with its mDNS hostname and provide the candidate to the web application. <del> An ICE agent can implement this procedure in any way so long as it produces equivalent results to this procedure. </del> <ins> ICE agents can implement this procedure in any way as long as it produces equivalent results.  An implementation may for instance pre- register mDNS hostnames by executing steps 3 to 6 and prepopulate an ICE agent accordingly.  By doing so, only step 7 of the above procedure will be executed at the time of gathering candidates. </ins> <del> An implementation may for instance pre-register mDNS hostnames by executing steps 3 to 5 and prepopulate an ICE agent accordingly.  By doing so, only step 6 of the above procedure will be executed at the time of gathering candidates. </del> <ins> ICE agents may also decide that certain local IP addresses are safe to expose.  This may be because the ICE agent has a priori knowledge that the address is in fact public, or because the agent has made a policy decision to not conceal certain types of IP addresses (e.g., those with built-in privacy protections) as a calculated choice to improve connectivity.  This topic is discussed further in {#privacy} below. </ins> An implementation may also detect that mDNS is not supported by the <del> available network interfaces.  The ICE agent may skip steps 2 and 3 </del> <ins> available network interfaces.  The ICE agent may skip steps 3 and 4 </ins> and directly decide to not expose the host candidate. This procedure ensures that an mDNS name is used to replace only one

Related discussion:
text: If we hand out the mDNS candidate and then get a srflx candidate that matches the local IP, should we make that a host candidate? Once we learn an IP is not public, should we cache that for future ICE gathering sessions (i.e., not give out mDNS candidates?) The easiest thing would probably be to recommend handing out the mDNS and srflx candidates as usual, but allow implementations to skip mDNS for IPs it has learned are public. (Except for RFC1918 addresses, which would always be treated as private.)
Partially addressed in , will probably include some additional clarifying text once it lands
The rest LGTM