Thanks everyone! I concur with Rich on all of the above. best, Nimrod
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 21:31, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > Basically all the suggestions (with, I think, three comments below). > > Let me know if any of this is not clear. > > Thank you! > > > - 1) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *AD - We have marked this document as > part of > - BCP 195 because it updates RFC 9325, which is part of BCP 195. > > > Fine with me, assuming the AD concurs. > > > - 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the abbreviated title as > follows. > - New Protocols Using TLS Must Require TLS 1.3 > > > Fine. > > > - 3) <!-- [rfced] Abstract: How may we update "over TLS 1.2" to > improve clarity? > > > Fine. > > > - 4) <!-- [rfced] Introduction: May we update "fixed weaknesses in TLS > 1.2" as > - follows to match the sentence in the abstract? > > > Fine. > > > - 5) <!-- [rfced] Both of the sentences below are from the > Introduction. Would it > - be helpful to remove the text about TLS 1.3 being widespread from the > - first sentence below since it is also mentioned in the second > sentence? > > > Sure. > > > - In addition, should "must require and assume its existence" be > updated to > - just "must require"? > > > The original sense of what we were going for is “should assume TLS 1.3 is > available and therefore must require its use.” If you prefer using “must > require” that is okay. > > > - 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: Is "For TLS" needed at the beginning of > this sentence? > - Also, will readers understand what "these efforts" refers to? > > > The “For TLS” can be removed. For “these efforts within the TLS WG” > perhaps “the TLS WG is focusing its efforts on TLS 1.3 or later” ? "These > efforts" is really the efforts of the WG so maybe “their efforts” if you > prefer. > > > - 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: Will readers know what "this" refers to > here? > - Perhaps: > - If the application is using a TLS implementation that supports TLS > - version negotiation > - and if it knows that the TLS implementation will use the highest > - version supported, then clients SHOULD specify just the minimum > - version they want. > > > Fine. > > > - 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: Would it be helpful to revise these > sentences as > - follows to enhance readability? > > > Fine. > > > - 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 6: How may we revise the text starting with > "that > - allows…"? > > > Fine. > > > - 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 6: Please review the following suggestions > and let us > - know if the updates make the text more clear. > > > Suggestion “a)” is fine. > For suggestion “b)” a minor edit: “most of the handshake messages are not” > should be “most of the content of the handshake messages is not” > > > - 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 6: Both of the following sentences appear > in the same > - paragraph. Would it be helpful to update to reduce redundancy? > > > Fine. > > > - 12) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the date for this reference from > "August 2024" to > - "June 2025" to match the updated date provided at the URL. > > > Fine. > > > - 13) <!-- [rfced] The URL in the following reference entry appears to > be broken. > - We were able to find an archived version from the Wayback Machine and > > > Fine. > > > > - 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added an expansion for the following > abbreviation > - per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review > carefully > - to ensure correctness. > - Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) > > > That’s correct. > > > - 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > the online > > > Did not find anything to change. > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
