Hi Eric, Deb* (as AD), IANA, Thanks for sending the markdown file along. We have updated it a bit so that we could get output files. We have a few questions below.
IANA, please see item 5 below. *Deb, please review and confirm that these updates are acceptable. We recommend reviewing the following diffs: Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) The current files are available as follows: 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 AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Eric, please review the items below. 1) We updated "The Transcript Hash” to be Section 4.1 — please confirm that this is correct. Previously, Section 4 was nested as follows: 4. Handshake Protocol 4.1. Key Exchange Messages 4.1.1. Cryptographic Negotiation 4.1.2. Client Hello 4.1.3. Server Hello 4.1.4. Hello Retry Request … 4.4. Authentication Messages 4.4.1. The Transcript Hash … In the updated file, kramdown-rfc complained about the nesting, which appeared as follows: # Handshake Protocol ### The Transcript Hash 2) Confirm "non-DHE key key establishment algorithms” is correct (occurs 2x) 3) Should this be “as 0-RTT data on connection 1”? … as an attacker may be able to cause the data to be processed as 0-RTT data as connection 1 and as 1-RTT data on connection 2. 4) To get the outputs, we updated the references to RFC 9846 to be included as “PRE-RFC9846” - it will be updated in the XML file prior to publication. Would you be open to not including a self-reference to RFC 9846, and including the references in the IANA tables as plain text "[RFC9846]” instead - this would be normal handling to avoid self-references. 5) IANA - please note the following additions to the IANA Considerations section and let us know when the updates are complete. See section 11.1 <https://auth48-transition.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.html#section-11.1>: - IANA has added references to this document for the status_request and supported_groups entries in the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry. - IANA has updated the TLS ExtensionType value in the "TLS 1.3" column for cached_info to "CH, EE”. Thanks, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Jun 24, 2026, at 9:23 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for your patience. > > I have merged the last set of proposed changes and the correct MD file can be > found at: > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/30a8dfda0148e1bd45d6196ee3a0ad9e23537167/rfc9846.md > > IMPORTANT: We updated a number of references to RFC 8446 to point to RFC > 9846. I added a placeholder reference for RFC 9846 to the MD, but you'll need > to fix this. > > -Ekr > > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 9:22 AM Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I haven’t found a way to force a line break in the markdown, but I can do it > using zwsp in the XML so I’ll update once the file is converted. > > Thanks, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > > On May 18, 2026, at 3:26 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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]
