Hi, I looked at https://tlswg.org/tls13-spec/rfc9846.txt and found some things that I think should be fixed in AUTH48. I made a PR for the two easy editorial corrections https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1416/changes
Cheers, John Preuß Mattsson ---- The heading and abstract are not aligned. - The heading says it only obsoletes 8446, while the abstract says 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446 - The heading says 8422 is updates, while the abstract says obsoleted. "Obsoletes: 8446 (if approved)" "Updates: 5705, 6066, 7627, 8422 (if approved)” "This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446." --- OLD: record_size_limit [RFC8849] NEW: record_size_limit [RFC8449] --- OLD: as described in Section 4.1.4). NEW: as described in Section 4.1.4. --- "A client sending a ClientHello MUST support all parameters advertised in it" Shouldn't this be "MUST support all non-GREASE [RFC8701] parameters" --- From: Rob Sayre <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 20 March 2026 at 20:27 To: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [TLS] Re: rfc8446bis status -- On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:19 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis/history/ has been in AUTH48 for 3 months now. What's the holdup? The holdup is that we're working through some last minute issues, such as https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1410 I need to cite it. Cite 8446. Oh I would, but I need to say the equivalent of "master secret". thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
