https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1454
Sean? On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 4:42 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your mail. > > The overall intent here is for this document to completely displace RFC > 8446, > so I think that means that between this document and its normative > reference > to RFC 9847 we need to include everything that ws in 8446 and 8447. To > that end, I don't think we should remove S 11. > > I do think we should remove everything that overlaps. I'm going to take a > stab at that in a PR. > > -Ekr > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 9:22 PM Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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]
