jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
entities that are authorized to send messages on the channel.  The push service does not require access to this public key. <ins> The Topic header field exposes information that allows more granular correlation of push messages on the same subject.  This might be used to aid traffic analysis of push messages by the push service. </ins> 9.2. Push message confidentiality does not ensure that the identity of who

Related discussion:
text: However, you raise a point that the definition of 429 leaves open: Is this too many requests globally? By the same client? To the same resource? To the same resource by the same client? Basically, the "scope" of applicability for 429 is hard - if not impossible - to determine. The scope is defined in some server specific terms. The question I'd ask is whether we want to provide some webpush-specific mechanism for identifying the scope of applicability for the rejection.
What about using a Scope header field in the response? In this case it will be 'Topic', maybe for too many messages for a subscription it could be 'Subscription', etc.
All these things are possible. The question is how important it is. Also, if we wanted to address the scope problem, I would want to address it more generally and then maybe add any push-specific extensions as necessary. This is a problem with 429 that - if it is worth fixing here - is probably worth fixing generally.
Maybe this was answered elsewhere, but why not just reusing the push message URI? To replace a previous message, the application would create a new message and include the previous message URI in the creation request, inside a "Replace" header. Otherwise, it would work in the same way as this proposal. This would be easy to handle on the Push Server side. On the application server side, this would mean storing the previous message URI. But the application server needs to store the topic of the previous message anyway.
NAME the idea here was that remembering the push message URI was a burden we didn't want to impose on applications. Those that aren't using acknowledgments will be able to use this version without holding any special state. Thanks for the grammatical review, I'll fix those up.
NAME an application wanting to be able to update a message will need to keep the topic of this message, so it will need to keep this state. I don't think keeping a topic or the push message URI is a large difference. However, it's true that simple applications could use only 1 topic, which would be predefined (or a few predefined topics).
NAME an application can hard-code a topic or small set of topics. They can also derive a topic from context. A URL needs to be first learned, then memorized.
NAME do you have any opinions on this change?
Code change:
entities that are authorized to send messages on the channel.  The push service does not require access to this public key. <ins> The Topic header field exposes information that allows more granular correlation of push messages on the same subject.  This might be used to aid traffic analysis of push messages by the push service. </ins> 9.2. Push message confidentiality does not ensure that the identity of who

Related discussion:
text: Updated based on feedback from NAME Note that I haven't changed the name. Not sure that we have consensus on that yet.
Conversation starts : How does the PS know that AS can accept more receipts, and how does it know a receipt has been accepted by the AS ?
Two-Pipe model a la mode de TIP? URL
NAME started on HTTPbis
Costin : we discussed my concerns on flow control for push promises, and I think it's reasonable to have them addressed either as part of http2 or as a separate document. I'm closing this issue for webpush since it's no longer actionable - NAME - re-open if you want to track for "futures". I'll tag appropriately. +1 - we discussed my concerns on flow control for push promises, and I think it's reasonable to have them addressed either as part of http2 or as a separate document. Other than that I think it's reasonable and stable base - extensions and features can be added on top of it. Costin Richard Maher wrote: >
+1 But I'm not sure we can support the mode that Martin described, so I think we may take advantage of "PS MAY return a new receipt subscription if it is unable to reuse". Buffering and flow control are complicated - the choice is between dropping receipts or sending them to a different DC. I haven't checked, but I think there is no guarantee on saving receipts if AS doesn't have enough ingress capacity. One question for HTTP/2 experts: I assumed the receipt promises are subject to normal 'max concurrent streams' ( and this will be the main mechanism to do flow control/balancing from PS to AS). However I see rfc7540: ... " Note: The client never sends a frame with the END_STREAM flag for a server push." How does the PS know that AS can accept more receipts, and how does it know a receipt has been accepted by the AS ? Costin Brian Raymor wrote: >
Code change:
cause a sender to increase their send rate.  This increase could result in congestion and loss. <del> A sender MAY attempt to detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that they send with ECN-CE.  If a packet sent with ECN-CE is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender SHOULD disable ECN for that path. </del> <ins> A sender can detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that it sends with an ECN-CE marking.  If a packet sent with an ECN-CE marking is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender can disable ECN for that path by not setting ECT codepoints in subsequent packets sent on that path RFC3168. </ins> Reporting additional ECN-CE markings will cause a sender to reduce their sending rate, which is similar in effect to advertising reduced

Related discussion:
text: Also removes odd MAY when suggesting that a sender can use TCP's pipeACK method. Addresses .
In Recovery-31 there are several references that I judge as normative and not informative ones. Section 7.8: "A sender MAY use the pipeACK method described in Section 4.3 of [RFC7661] to determine if the congestion window is sufficiently utilized." A normative reference necessary to follow if one selects to use the optional method.Sectiom 7.3.2: "Implementations MAY reduce the congestion window immediately upon entering a recovery period or use other mechanisms, such as Proportional Rate Reduction ([PRR]), to reduce the congestion window more gradually." Another case of a suggested mechanism, which if one is to follow it requires one to read that PPR reference. Secondly, why the alternative reference style.Section 8.3: "Markings can be treated as equivalent to loss ([RFC3168]), but other responses can be specified, such as ([RFC8511]) or ([RFC8311])." So RFC3168 is the normative specification for the treat it equal to loss. RFC8511 is the TCP alternative back-off an experimental specification for the alternative. And RFC8311 is the process for performing other experiments with alternative responses. I judge all necessary depending on what one intendeds to do. So to my understanding this results in two downrefs to experimental specifications. I think that is acceptable in the context they are used in this document. But to be tried in IETF last call. However, I think I don't want to generally recommend them to be acceptable as downrefs so I have no intentions to promote them for the Downref registry.
Moving discussion from the PR to the issue. NAME : I'm not the expert on what should be normative, but these were intentionally marked as informative references since they're all TCP specific RFCs. The pipeACK reference in particular seems like an odd one. If this is what the chairs want, then I'm ok with it as an editor, but these choices were intentional. NAME : I see what NAME is saying, but I also see some wiggle room in RFC 3967, Section 1.1: When a reference to an example is made, such a reference need not be normative.
Code change:
cause a sender to increase their send rate.  This increase could result in congestion and loss. <del> A sender MAY attempt to detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that they send with ECN-CE.  If a packet sent with ECN-CE is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender SHOULD disable ECN for that path. </del> <ins> A sender can detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that it sends with an ECN-CE marking.  If a packet sent with an ECN-CE marking is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender can disable ECN for that path by not setting ECT codepoints in subsequent packets sent on that path RFC3168. </ins> Reporting additional ECN-CE markings will cause a sender to reduce their sending rate, which is similar in effect to advertising reduced

Related discussion:
text: For example, text such as "an algorithm such as the one specified in [RFCxxxx] would be acceptable" indicates an informative reference, since that cited algorithm is just one of several possible algorithms that could be used. I am also somewhat concerned that trying to get the downrefs into the registry is more likely to run into trouble (Sec 3) This procedure should not be used if the proper step is to move the document to which the reference is being made into the appropriate category. It is not intended as an easy way out of normal process. Rather, the procedure is intended for dealing with specific cases where putting particular documents into the required category is problematic and unlikely ever to happen.
Thanks for digging up the relevant text, NAME Based on that text from RFC 3967, it doesn't seem like we need to make these references normative. I agree that the pipeACK reference is odd, but I think that's probably because of the use of MAY there. I'm happy to replace the MAY with a can -- it is meant to present an option, not a permission -- and make that reference informative as well. NAME : thoughts?
I think at last RFC3168 should be referenced normatively somewhere (probably section 7.1 though) because you need to know what the ECN bits are in order to do anything with it. I guess because of section 7.1. RFC8311 should also be a normative reference.
NAME RFC3168 is already a normative reference in the transport doc, which in my view is appropriate.
Was wondering about this as well given the transport doc is of course a normative reference of this doc. However, as this doc uses terms like CE also directly itself I think the right practice is to also have it as a normative reference here, and as you have to read it no matter what, it definitely shouldn't hurt.
talks about ECN-CE markings, but really all of Section 7 talks about a response to an increase in ECN-CE count by the peer, which is defined in the transport doc. This does point to a small editorial issue. The text in Section 4.1 says: This really should be:
Good point on the editorial issue.
With that change, the only thing we're left with is .
Code change:
cause a sender to increase their send rate.  This increase could result in congestion and loss. <del> A sender MAY attempt to detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that they send with ECN-CE.  If a packet sent with ECN-CE is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender SHOULD disable ECN for that path. </del> <ins> A sender can detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that it sends with an ECN-CE marking.  If a packet sent with an ECN-CE marking is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender can disable ECN for that path by not setting ECT codepoints in subsequent packets sent on that path RFC3168. </ins> Reporting additional ECN-CE markings will cause a sender to reduce their sending rate, which is similar in effect to advertising reduced

Related discussion:
text: This does require an understanding of ECN, and it has RFC 2119 keywords, but it's really an optional mechanism that is suggested. We could remove the RFC 2119 words there, since they're really unnecessary.
My point is that RFC3168 should be normative because not matter what you need to understand what an ECN-CE mark is and that is defined/specified in RFC3168.
Mirja has a point, see URL
-transport is a normative reference. So 3168 is already (transitively) a normative reference. The question is whether this specific text requires anything from 3168 to understand. I don't see that it does, especially given the suggested change, which talks about a concept defined in -transport, not 3168.
has made these editorial changes; NAME can you see if anything else needs to be done here?
I will note that it was never my intention to let any of theses Experimental or informational TCP specs to be added into the downref registry by this last call. So, the pipeack reference needs to be reformulated to not be a normative one. As currently stated it is a clear normative reference per IESG Statement ([URL]) , and especially "Note 1: Even references that are relevant only for optional features must be classified as normative if they meet the above conditions for normative references. " You need to find a formulation that normative describes what the implementation MAY do, and then you can exemplify with the TCP version. Then one in Section 7.3.2 I can accept as still being informative as the MAY statement is related to the primary aspect of the sentence and the reference to PPR is exemplifying. Still this is very much on the border and may still generate a comment in IESG. For RFC 3168 I don't understand why not making it to a normative one. There are no issues with its status as it is proposed standard. And simply the security consideration section still implies that you need to know what a ECN-CE mark is to interpret this. So please make this one normative.
I'm ok with RFC 3168 being normative, particularly since it's already normative in transport, but would like to avoid making the others normative.
Code change:
cause a sender to increase their send rate.  This increase could result in congestion and loss. <del> A sender MAY attempt to detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that they send with ECN-CE.  If a packet sent with ECN-CE is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender SHOULD disable ECN for that path. </del> <ins> A sender can detect suppression of reports by marking occasional packets that it sends with an ECN-CE marking.  If a packet sent with an ECN-CE marking is not reported as having been CE marked when the packet is acknowledged, then the sender can disable ECN for that path by not setting ECT codepoints in subsequent packets sent on that path RFC3168. </ins> Reporting additional ECN-CE markings will cause a sender to reduce their sending rate, which is similar in effect to advertising reduced

Related discussion:
text: NAME if pipeack is not normative then a reformulation is necessary of that sentence in Section 7.8 to not state is as a mechanism that MAY be implemented.
The sentence currently has a can, not a MAY: "A sender can use the pipeACK method described in Section 4.3 of {{?RFC7661}} to determine if the congestion window is sufficiently utilized." But I sent out PR to make it clearer that pipeACK is an example, PTAL and see if that helps.
NAME what PR proposes removing that first sentence do resolve the pipeack to me. So merging , and moving RFC3168 to normative will resolve this issue to my understanding.
Thanks! I'll update PR to include moving RFC3168 to normative.
NAME NAME : I believe this is purely editorial, but I'd like to confirm.
We've meandered to a route that AFAICT makes reference types accurate to their existing intent, or avoids them becoming normative. I'm happy for this to be editorials.
I think that this is the most appropriate response.
Code change:
Each distinct instant in time can be represented in a descriptive text format using a timestamp, and ISO8601 standardizes a widely- <del> adopted timestamp format, which forms the basis of RFC3339.  However, this format only allows timestamps to contain very little additional relevant information, which means that, beyond that, any contextual information related to a given timestamp needs to be either handled separately or attached to it in a non-standard manner. </del> <ins> adopted timestamp format, which forms the basis of the Internet Date/ Time Format RFC3339.  However, this format only allows timestamps to contain very little additional relevant information, which means that, beyond that, any contextual information related to a given timestamp needs to be either handled separately or attached to it in a non-standard manner. </ins> This is already a pressing issue for applications that handle each instant with an associated time zone name, to take into account

Related discussion:
text: We need a name that people will use until they can say RFC9999 timestamps (and maybe even when they can).
"Extended Timestamps" or "Extended Internet Timestamps" ?
RFC 3339 says "Internet Date/Time Format". That is what sedate says at the moment as well, but that can't stay the same. So I'm considering moving to: Internet Date/Time Format Extended The alternative .... Extended Internet Date/Time Format sounds like a date/time format for the Extended Internet (EI is actually in use as "Extensible Internet", which this shouldn't be confused with). I'd rather call it Fritz, but I haven't found a way to retronym this...
Thanks
Code change:
the secrets themselves are protected by HPKE encryption. Note that under that compromise scenario, authentication is not <del> affected in neither of these cases.  As every member of the group can </del> <ins> affected in either of these cases.  As every member of the group can </ins> compute the AEAD keys for all the chains (they have access to the Group Secrets) in order to send and receive messages, the authentication provided by the AEAD encryption layer of the common

Related discussion:
text: For the authors' consideration: Section 3 A member with a valid credential authenticates its MLS messages by signing them with the s/its/it's/ mechanisms for a user to monitor and control which keys are associated to their identity. s/to their/with their/ Operational Requirements A extension can help maintain interoperability s/A extension/An extension/ Whether there should be a extension in groups. s/a extension/an extension/ Forward and Post-Compromise Security MLS partially defend against this problem by active member including freshness, however not s/defend/defends/ s/member/members/ Mandate a key updates from clients that are not otherwise sending messages s/a key/key/ Compromise of AEAD key material authentication is not affected in neither of these s/neither/either/ Compromise of the Group Secrets of a single group for one or more group epochs of the compromised party with no ability to an honest group to recover message secrecy. s/to an/for an/ Compromise by an active adversary with the ability to sign messages the attacker can perform all operations which are available to an legitimate client s/an legitmate/a legitimate/ Compromise of the authentication with access to a signature key Beware that in both oracle and private key access, an active adaptive attacker, can follow th s/attacker, can/attacker can/ Security consideration in the context of a full state compromise They also are providing the strong authentication guarantees to other clients s/providing the strong/providing strong/ hence we consider that their protection by additional security mechanism should be a priority. s/mechanism/mechanisms/ Overall there is no way to detect or prevent these compromise, as discussed s/compromise/compromises/ Privacy of delivery and push notifications For secure messaging systems, push notification are often sent real-time s/notification/notifications/ Authentication Service Compromise MLS client (which is under the control of the user) have often the ability s/have often/often have/
Approved with nits.These changes look good to me.
Code change:
tuple, as shown in transport-parameter-encoding-fig: The Transport Parameter Length field contains the length of the <del> Transport Parameter Value field. </del> <ins> Transport Parameter Value field in bytes. </ins> QUIC encodes transport parameters into a sequence of bytes, which is then included in the cryptographic handshake.

Related discussion:
text: Does this win the record for least amount of bytes touched in a PR?
Lars, I can't find it easily, but I believe that I pushed a 1 bit change at one point in this process.
Parameter Value field. Presumably the length in bytes.
Code change:
Different challenges allow the server to obtain proof of different aspects of control over an identifier.  In some challenges, like HTTP and TLS SNI, the client directly proves its ability to do certain <del> things related to the identifier.  In the Proof of Possession challenge, the client proves historical control of the identifier, by reference to a prior authorization transaction or certificate. The choice of which challenges to offer to a client under which circumstances is a matter of server policy.  A CA may choose different sets of challenges depending on whether it has interacted with a domain before, and how.  For example: New domain with no known certificates: Domain Validation (HTTP or TLS SNI) Domain for which known certs exist from other CAs: DV + Proof of Possession of previous CA-signed key Domain with a cert from this CA, lost account key: DV + PoP of ACME-certified Subject key Domain with a cert from this CA, all keys and recovery mechanisms lost: Out of band proof of authority for the domain </del> <ins> things related to the identifier.  The choice of which challenges to offer to a client under which circumstances is a matter of server policy. </ins> The identifier validation challenges described in this section all relate to validation of domain names.  If ACME is extended in the

Related discussion:
text: There has been no implementer interest in the proof-of-possession challenge, and it makes the document more complex by having a completely different structure than the other challenges. If it is decided later that such a challenge is necessary, it can be added in a follow-on extension specificiation.
Generally this seems fine, and I wholeheartedly agree with the purpose of the removal (for now). One problem I can't open a comment for: Line 2099, the last paragraph before "Preventing Authorization Hijacking", still refers to the PoP Challenge. Without the PoP Challenge wording, a new reader may take that this to be referring to the implicit Proof of Possession of the ACME Account Key and thus be confused. Since it's non-normative, perhaps you could simply modify that paragraph into something more like: