Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove RFC EDITOR note about DAP draft #447

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2024
Merged

Remove RFC EDITOR note about DAP draft #447

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2024

Conversation

cjpatton
Copy link
Collaborator

@cjpatton cjpatton commented Oct 7, 2024

Closes #439.

RFC 9180 (HPKE) and has an informative reference to draft-ietf-tls-esni (a protocol that uses HPKE). It's therefore reasonable to believe that VDAF may have an informative reference to draft-ietf-ppm-dap.

@cjpatton
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cjpatton commented Oct 7, 2024

There are four remaining RFC EDITOR notes:

  1. Remove the paragraph in the intro pointing to the draft repo
  2. Remove the change log section
  3. Replace the normative reference to draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve with the RFC once published
  4. Add the RFC number to the codepoints table

@cjpatton
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cjpatton commented Oct 8, 2024

Feedback from @bifurcation: We must replace draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve with the RFC before it's published. I'll replace this EDITOR task with a TODO and add an issue to track it.

RFC 9180 (HPKE) and has an informative reference to draft-ietf-tls-esni
(a protocol that uses HPKE). It's therefore reasonable to believe that
VDAF may have an informative reference to draft-ietf-ppm-dap.

Also, add a TODO to point to the TurboSHAKE RFC.
@cjpatton
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cjpatton commented Oct 8, 2024

Done: #454

@cjpatton cjpatton merged commit c6023ab into main Oct 8, 2024
4 checks passed
@divergentdave divergentdave deleted the cjpatton/439 branch October 8, 2024 22:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Make sure all "RFC EDITOR" notes are actually tasks for the RFC editor
2 participants