Hi,
It looks like this document's IANA Considerations section contradicts the
registration procedure changes introduced by RFC 9847.
Section 11 reproduces the original IANA Considerations text from RFC 8446,
which said that the procedure for the following registries is Specification
Required:
- TLS Cipher Suites
- TLS ExtensionType Values
- TLS SignatureScheme
- TLS PskKeyExchangeMode
For the last two registries, it also says that a "Recommended" value of "Y"
requires Standards Action, and IESG Approval is required for a change from "Y"
to "N."
RFC 9847, however, appears to say that for all four of those registries,
Specification Required is to be used only when the "Recommended" field is set
to "N." If the "Recommended" value is "Y" or "D", or if the "Recommended" value
is being changed in any way, the registration procedure is either Standards
Action with Expert Review or IESG Approval.
Would it make sense to remove everything but Section 11.1 ("Changes for this
RFC") from the IANA Considerations section? Section 11 did include one new
piece of information (the "X509" update), but the registry already points to
the errata report that made that change.
We didn't catch this for two reasons, I think: we reviewed it before
8447bis/9487 came through, and then when it was time to perform the actions,
there would have appeared to be no reason to re-examine a section that didn't
request any actions and hadn't changed since we reviewed it.
thanks,
Amanda
On Fri Jul 03 21:23:29 2026, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have converted the markdown file to XML, and posted the resulting
> outputs here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.xml
> 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 between text produced by markdown and xml:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-lastdiff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846-lastrfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
>
> We added the line break in table 2 using zwsp. We also outdented the
> list of contributors. FYI, we tried using <contact> for the list of
> contributors, but there isn’t a way to add notes (e.g., co-author of,
> editor of). We have left the list as <artwork>.
>
>
> 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)
>
>
> Please note that we have been chatting with IANA about some of the
> actions, and I believe they will send some clarifying questions next
> week.
>
> Thanks,
> Sandy Ginoza
> RFC Production Center
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 2026, at 1:32 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Approved.
> >
> > -Ekr
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 11:19 AM Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]
> > editor.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My mistake for not pointing to — please see <https://www.rfc-
> > editor.org/authors/rfc9846.md>.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sandy
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 2, 2026, at 10:23 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Can you please provide the markdown file for this?
> > >
> > > -Ekr
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 1:01 PM Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]
> > > editor.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > We removed there reference to RFC 9146. We also removed a few
> > > quotes from around IANA registry titles for consistency with the
> > > rest of the document. If you’re open to adding the quotes
> > > throughout (per typical RPC editing), please let us know.
> > >
> > > FYI: We confirmed that the IANA updates are complete.
> > >
> > > The current files are here:
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.xml
> > > 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 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)
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or
> > > if you approve the RFC for publication.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sandy Ginoza
> > > RFC Production Center
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 30, 2026, at 7:03 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 6:15 PM Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]
> > > > editor.org> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > We don't need one. Let's just remove it.
> > > >
> > > > -Ekr
> > > > 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]
