In 8446 we just broke it after traffic_ | Post- | ClientHello ... client | client_application_traffic_ | | Handshake | Finished + | secret_N | | | CertificateRequest | | +-----------+-------------------------+-----------------------------+
On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 1:09 PM Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for your explanations. The document has been updated, including > the updates related to <https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1430>. > Please see the updated files here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.md > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.html > > Diffs of the recent updates: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-lastrfcdiff.html > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-rfcdiff.html > > Is there any good way to break this table row? It appears to be 1 > character over the 69-character limit and we are unaware of any way to > outdent the table as a whole. > > +---------+--------------------+-------------------------------------+ > |Post- |ClientHello ... |[sender]_application_traffic_secret_N| > |Handshake|client Finished + | | > | |CertificateRequest | | > +---------+--------------------+-------------------------------------+ > > Thanks, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > > On May 18, 2026, at 10:14 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Oh, I noticed I missed responding to some questions about replacing > references. One of these is right and the others are wrong. See. > > > > https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1430 > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 8:21 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > I went through the [rfced] questions and comments. Here is a copy of the > markdown with > > most removed as no action required and a few responses. I think the only > indicated change > > is updating the SSL2 reference. If you want to update this, I can merge > in the other > > (AD/chair approved) auth48 changes and provide a return copy. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 11:42 AM Sandy Ginoza < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > Thanks for the ping, and my apologies for the delay! We have removed > the use of aasvg and the question below from the set of open questions in > the markdown file. Please let us know if any changes are needed. > > > > > > <!--[rfced] The SVG in Figures 1 and 4 are outputting a solid circle > while the figure displays *. Please > > review. One possible fix would be to move the legend outside of the > figure. Please review and let us > > know how this may be updated. > > > > Original: > > * Indicates optional or situation-dependent > > messages/extensions that are not always sent. > > --> > > > > The current files are available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.md > > > > Thanks, > > Sandy Ginoza > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > >> On May 11, 2026, at 6:54 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Ping? > >> > >> On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 3:33 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There are other updates being worked on. However, in reviewing it I > found the following > >> glitch. Consider the following diagram in the ASCII art: > >> > >> <image.png> > >> > >> In your rendered HTML it is:<image.png> > >> > >> Note how the * in the second bullet below turns into a large bullet. > This is > >> not correct. This is an AASVG glitch [0], but I don't think the answer > is > >> to change the input as MT's PR suggests but rather to fix the toolchain, > >> or alternately, to render this in ASCII art as was done in 8446. > >> > >> Note that this is also a glitch: > >> > >> <image.png> > >> > >> > >> -Ekr > >> > >> [0] https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1406 > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 10:11 AM Sandy Ginoza < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Eric, > >> > >> We’re checking to see if there is any movement with RFC-to-be 9846. It > looks like there was consensus to "prohibit key share reuse between > connections” and a PR was merged (April 9). Are all of the relevant > updates in <https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1410/changes> or are > there other updates being discussed? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Sandy > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jan 30, 2026, at 2:33 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > There isn't anything you can do at this time. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 2:32 PM Sandy Ginoza < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > Greetings, > >> > > >> > Please let us know how we can help advance this document to > publication. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Sandy Ginoza > >> > RFC Production Center > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Jan 14, 2026, at 5:03 PM, Sandy Ginoza < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hi Eric, > >> > > > >> > > This is a friendly reminder that we await your review. Please let > us know if there are any further issues that need to be addressed before > you continue with your review. > >> > > > >> > > Please note that we updated the date to reflect January 2026 but > have made no other changes since the update described below. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Sandy Ginoza > >> > > RFC Production Center > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> On Dec 22, 2025, at 3:38 PM, Sandy Ginoza < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Eric, > >> > >> > >> > >> As requested, we have re-reviewed the updates to text that was > untouched from RFC 8446. In keeping with that style, we reverted many of > the updates that were introduced in the new text as well. Corrections > remain in place. The entries for ACM Proceedings have also been reverted, > but other updates remain. > >> > >> > >> > >> Please review the files and reply to the questions sent previously > (they are still relevant). And, please provide the update "related to PKCS > v1.5” that Paul mentioned. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The current set of file are available here: > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.md > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.txt > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.html > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.pdf > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Comprehensive diffs: > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-diff.html > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-rfcdiff.html > >> > >> > >> > >> Markdown diffs: > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-md-diff.html > >> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-md-rfcdiff.html > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Sandy Ginoza > >> > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 16, 2025, at 5:16 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Hi, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I've taken an initial look at this version of the document and I > see that in a number > >> > >>> of cases references which were present in RFC 8446 have been > changed. > >> > >>> For example: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> RFC8446: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> [Kraw16] Krawczyk, H., "A Unilateral-to-Mutual Authentication > >> > >>> Compiler for Key Exchange (with Applications to Client > >> > >>> Authentication in TLS 1.3", Proceedings of ACM CCS > 2016, > >> > >>> October 2016, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/711>. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> RFC9846-to-be: > >> > >>> [Kraw10] Krawczyk, H., "Cryptographic Extraction and Key > >> > >>> Derivation: The HKDF Scheme", Cryptology ePrint > Archive, > >> > >>> Paper 2010/264, 2010, < > https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/264>. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> This is a regression. The situation here is that this paper was > published in > >> > >>> ACM CCS (a top 4 conference) but the proceedings aren't public, > and so > >> > >>> the link is to ePrint, which is public. It's misleading to have > the citation > >> > >>> be to ePrint as if this wasn't peer reviewed published work. It's > of course > >> > >>> possible that this isn't exactly the paper that was presented at > >> > >>> CCS, but I think this is generally the right practice. There are > quite a few of these > >> > >>> and I think we should reverse them to match RFC 8446. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> In addition, some spot-checking finds other places where there > are minor edits in > >> > >>> this document to text which is otherwise unchanged from RFC 8446, > especially > >> > >>> around commas. I think there should be a fairly strong > presumption that the > >> > >>> text in 8446 is correct and shouldn't be changed unless there is > a real error, > >> > >>> as opposed to just that upon repeated copy-edit someone thinks it > reads > >> > >>> better. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Can the RPC please go through its proposed changes to identify > variances > >> > >>> from RFC 8446 in text that is otherwise unchanged and reconsider > whether > >> > >>> those changes are in fact necessary? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks, > >> > >>> -Ekr > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 6:17 AM Paul Wouters < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> This document requires a small change applied to it related to > PKCS v1.5 Eric has the change for this. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Paul > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 12:06 AM <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Authors, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) > >> > >>> the following questions, which are also in the source file. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that > appear in > >> > >>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] The document header indicates it obsoletes and > updates the > >> > >>> following RFCs: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Obsoletes: 8446 > >> > >>> Updates: 5705, 6066, 7627, 8422 > >> > >>> > >> > >>> In the body of the document, we see the text below. Note that > the mentions of updates seem consistent with the document header. However, > the text specifies that it obsoletes more than just RFC 8446, likely > because RFC 8446 obsoleted those documents. Please review and let us know > how/if the header can be consistent with the body of the document. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> a) Abstract: Note that we removed 8422 from the obsoletes list > because this doc seemingly updates it. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and > obsoletes > >> > >>> RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> b) Introduction: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> This document supersedes and obsoletes previous versions of TLS, > >> > >>> including version 1.2 [RFC5246]. It also obsoletes the TLS > ticket > >> > >>> mechanism defined in [RFC5077] and replaces it with the mechanism > >> > >>> defined in Section 2.2. Because TLS 1.3 changes the way keys are > >> > >>> derived, it updates [RFC5705] as described in Section 7.5. It > also > >> > >>> changes how Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) messages > are > >> > >>> carried and therefore updates [RFC6066] and obsoletes [RFC6961] > as > >> > >>> described in Section 4.4.2.1. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 3) <!--[rfced] The following RFCs have been obsoleted as follows. > May they > >> > >>> be replaced with the obsoleting RFC? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> RFC 6347 has been obsoleted by RFC 9147 > >> > >>> RFC 6962 has been obsoleted by RFC 9162 > >> > >>> RFC 7507 has been obsoleted by RFC 8996 > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] This reference appears to match the information > for the > >> > >>> following Internet-Draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hickman-netscape-ssl/ > >> > >>> > >> > >>> May we update this reference to point to this I-D? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Current: > >> > >>> [SSL2] Hickman, K., "The SSL Protocol", 9 February 1995. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Perhaps: > >> > >>> [SSL2] Elgamal, T. and K. E. Hickman, "The SSL Protocol", > Work in > >> > >>> Progress, Internet-Draft, > draft-hickman-netscape-ssl-00, > >> > >>> 19 April 1995, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ > >> > >>> draft-hickman-netscape-ssl-00>. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We updated [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] to [PRE-RFC9849] > for now. > >> > >>> We will make the final updates in RFCXML. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 6) <!--[rfced] As "requiring" and "should" seem to contradict in > this > >> > >>> statement, may we remove "should" from the text below? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Original: > >> > >>> * Clarify behavior around "user_canceled", requiring that > >> > >>> "close_notify" be sent and that "user_canceled" should be > ignored. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Perhaps: > >> > >>> * Clarify behavior around "user_canceled", requiring that > >> > >>> "close_notify" be sent and that "user_canceled" be ignored. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 7) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have updated Figure 1 to fit the > 72-character > >> > >>> limit. Please review and let us know if any further updates are > needed. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 8) <!--[rfced] The SVG in Figures 1 and 4 are outputting a solid > circle for > >> > >>> this text, while the figure displays *. Please review. One > possible fix > >> > >>> would be to move the legend outside of the figure. Please review > and let > >> > >>> us know how this may be updated. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Original: > >> > >>> * Indicates optional or situation-dependent > >> > >>> messages/extensions that are not always sent. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 9) <!--[rfced] Table 1 > >> > >>> > >> > >>> a) FYI - We have updated the citation for "record_size_limit" > from > >> > >>> [RFC8849] to [RFC8449], as [RFC8449] defines the extension and > [RFC8849] > >> > >>> does not have any mention of it. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Original: > >> > >>> record_size_limit [RFC8849] > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Current: > >> > >>> record_size_limit [RFC8449] > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> b) We note that RFC 9345 uses "delegated_credential" rather than > >> > >>> "delegated_credentials" (no "s"). May we update the extension to > reflect > >> > >>> RFC 9345? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Current: > >> > >>> delegated_credentials {{RFC9345}} > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Table 2 extends one character line beyond the > width limit. > >> > >>> We will play with this in the RFCXML file, but please let us know > if you > >> > >>> see a good way to break the lines differently. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 11) <!--[rfced] We believe the intention of this line to note > that the > >> > >>> asterisk has a specific meaning when present. Please note that > we will > >> > >>> update the XML to treat this as <dl>. Currently, kramdown treats > this as > >> > >>> a bulleted list item, and definition list yields the following: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *: Only included if present. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 12) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase the definition of this error > alert to > >> > >>> improve readability and provide clarity? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Original: > >> > >>> unrecognized_name: Sent by servers when no server exists > identified > >> > >>> by the name provided by the client via the "server_name" > extension > >> > >>> (see [RFC6066]). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Perhaps: > >> > >>> unrecognized_name: Sent by servers when no server that can be > identified > >> > >>> by the name provided by the client via the "server_name" > extension > >> > >>> (see [RFC6066]) exists. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 13) <!--[rfced] In Section 9.1, may we format these two items > into an > >> > >>> unordered list? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Original: > >> > >>> In the absence of an application profile standard specifying > >> > >>> otherwise: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> A TLS-compliant application MUST implement the > TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 > >> > >>> [GCM] cipher suite and SHOULD implement the > TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 > >> > >>> [GCM] and TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 [RFC8439] cipher suites > (see > >> > >>> Appendix B.4). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> A TLS-compliant application MUST support digital signatures with > >> > >>> rsa_pkcs1_sha256 (for certificates), rsa_pss_rsae_sha256 (for > >> > >>> CertificateVerify and certificates), and > ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256. A > >> > >>> TLS-compliant application MUST support key exchange with > secp256r1 > >> > >>> (NIST P-256) and SHOULD support key exchange with X25519 > [RFC7748]. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Perhaps: > >> > >>> In the absence of an application profile standard specifying > >> > >>> otherwise: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> * A TLS-compliant application MUST implement the > TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 > >> > >>> [GCM] cipher suite and SHOULD implement the > TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 > >> > >>> [GCM] and TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 [RFC8439] cipher > suites (see > >> > >>> Appendix B.4). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> * A TLS-compliant application MUST support digital signatures > with > >> > >>> rsa_pkcs1_sha256 (for certificates), rsa_pss_rsae_sha256 (for > >> > >>> CertificateVerify and certificates), and > ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256. A > >> > >>> TLS-compliant application MUST support key exchange with > secp256r1 > >> > >>> (NIST P-256) and SHOULD support key exchange with X25519 > [RFC7748]. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 14) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have updated the parenthetical text as > follows to > >> > >>> better describe the "TLS Supported Groups" registry. Please > review and > >> > >>> let us know of any objections. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Original: > >> > >>> This document updates two entries in the TLS Supported Groups > >> > >>> registry (created under a different name by [RFC4492]; now > maintained > >> > >>> by [RFC8422]) and updated by [RFC7919] and [RFC8447]. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Current: > >> > >>> This document updates two entries in the "TLS Supported Groups" > >> > >>> registry (created under a different name by [RFC4492]; now > maintained > >> > >>> by [RFC8422] and updated by [RFC7919] and [RFC8447]). > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 15) <!--[rfced] We note that some author comments are present in > the > >> > >>> markdown file. Please confirm that no updates related to these > comments are > >> > >>> outstanding. Note that the comments will be deleted prior to > publication. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> {::comment}Cite IND-CPA?{:/comment} > >> > >>> > >> > >>> {::comment}Cite INT-CTXT?{:/comment} > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 16) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have updated some artwork to sourcecode. > Please > >> > >>> review and let us know if further updates are necessary. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this > document > >> > >>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container > for > >> > >>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the > >> > >>> content that surrounds it" ( > https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 18) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following > >> > >>> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). > Please > >> > >>> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure > correctness. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) > >> > >>> Finite Field DHE (FFDHE) > >> > >>> Internet of Things (IoT) > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion > of the > >> > >>> online Style Guide < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > >> > >>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this > nature > >> > >>> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for > readers. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> For example, please consider whether the following should be > updated: > >> > >>> dummy > >> > >>> man-in-the-middle > >> > >>> > >> > >>> In addition, please consider whether "traditionally" should be > updated for > >> > >>> clarity. While the NIST website > >> > >>> < > https://web.archive.org/web/20250203031433/https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf> > > >> > >>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also > ambiguous. > >> > >>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for > everyone. > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 20) <!-- [rfced] FYI - we will convert the list of Contributors > contained > >> > >>> within <artwork> to be listed with the <contact> element once the > file is > >> > >>> converted to RFCXML. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> In addition, we will update the following reference entries that > were a > >> > >>> challenge to update in markdown. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> [BBFGKZ16] > >> > >>> [BBK17] > >> > >>> [CCG16] > >> > >>> [CHECKOWAY] > >> > >>> [CHSV16] > >> > >>> [JSS15] > >> > >>> [LXZFH16] > >> > >>> [SLOTH] > >> > >>> [CK01] > >> > >>> [CLINIC] > >> > >>> [DH76] > >> > >>> [DOW92] > >> > >>> [HCJC16] > >> > >>> [RSA] > >> > >>> [SIGMA] > >> > >>> [FETCH] > >> > >>> [SHS] > >> > >>> [DSS] > >> > >>> [ECDP] > >> > >>> [KEYAGREEMENT] > >> > >>> --> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you. > >> > >>> Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza > >> > >>> RFC Production Center > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Dec 15, 2025, at 8:57 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Updated 2025/12/15 > >> > >>> > >> > >>> RFC Author(s): > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot > test (see > >> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Please review the procedures for AUTH48 using kramdown-rfc: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Once your document has completed AUTH48, it will be published as > >> > >>> an RFC. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Files > >> > >>> ----- > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The files are available here: > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.md > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.html > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.pdf > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.txt > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Diff file of the text: > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-diff.html > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Diff of the kramdown: > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-md-diff.html > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-md-rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Tracking progress > >> > >>> ----------------- > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9846 > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> RFC Editor > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >> > >>> RFC 9846 (draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-14) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Title : The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol > Version 1.3 > >> > >>> Author(s) : E. Rescorla > >> > >>> WG Chair(s) : Joseph A. Salowey, Sean Turner, Deirdre > Connolly > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
