An updated .md file enacting this can be found at: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/f70841d414575c486d5f6b0117649719e27c35a7/rfc9846.md
On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 9:23 AM Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
