On Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Deb Cooley wrote:
Thanks to Deb for forwarding me a copy.
As AD at the time, this document was frozen to fixup some language
around Key Sharing. I can confirm that this version addresses those
concerns.
I also went through the entire diff, and they all seem acceptable to me.
If I still were the AD, I would approve publication at this point :)
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]>
Date: June 30, 2026 at 9:15:02 PM EDT
To: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>
Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9846 <draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-14>
for your review
Hi Eric, Deb*,
We have updated the document.
It looks like we may have missed this in earlier rounds, but we don’t see
an in-text citation for RFC 9146. Please review
and let us know where one should be included.
Notes:
- [PRE-RFC9846] has been replaced with [RFC9846] (no links). The
reference entry to RFC 9846 has been removed.
- While we prefer not to start sentences with I.e., we have left it per
your preference.
*Deb, please confirm that the updates shown in the diffs below are
acceptable:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-ADrfcdiff.html (side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-ADdiff.html
Please review and let us know if any additional updates are needed
(outside of the publication date) or if you approve the
RFC for publication.
IANA indicated the updates are complete, but I have not yet confirmed
them — we will let you know if there are any issues.
Thanks,
Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center
On Jun 26, 2026, at 10:52 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:31 PM Sandy Ginoza
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
An updated markdown file is available at:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/94ccece457fd37738390a844174a8d74e5ea4638/rfc9846.md
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
Thank you for fixing this.
I have reverted your changes of "I.e.," to "That is". I.e., is
fine. If you believe any copy-edit changes are
needed at this stage, can you please flag them explicitly as below,
rather than making them in the copy.
2) Confirm "non-DHE key key establishment algorithms” is correct
(occurs 2x)
This is correct.
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.
I have corrected this.
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.
I can live with this. Deb, Sean?
-Ekr
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
