Eric, Deb and Paul (as ADs), IANA - We updated the file, (re)converted to XML and updated some formatting, and posted the revised files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9846.xml 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
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) ADs - please review the updates in the files above and let us know if you approve. IANA - please verify that the updates in the files above address your concerns. 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) Thank you, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Jul 7, 2026, at 11:29 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
