Approved. On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 6:52 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]
