Thanks for the PR. I'll take it you're in favor of this change. Anyone else want to weigh in?
-Ekr On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 3:41 AM John Mattsson <[email protected]> wrote: > I tried to make an PR fixing the inconsistencies between abstract and > header: > - Adding all obsolete drafts from the abstract to the heading > - fixing that 8422 is not both updated and obsoleted > - Changed "Negotiated Groups" to "Supported Groups". The term "Negotiated > Groups" > is only used once and never again. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Raci4Lxm1Tk9IxrCpyQgJHMlXBw/ > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > >I'm now trying to recall why we did this. ISTM that given that we are > >obsoleting 5246 (already done in 8446), we should obsolete all the > >other specs that only meaningfully apply to 5246. Here's the > >list: > > > > * RFC 5077: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without > >Server-Side State > > * RFC 5246: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 > > * RFC 5705: Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS) > > * RFC 6066: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension > >Definitions > > * RFC 6961: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Multiple Certificate > Status > >Request Extension > > * RFC 7627: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Hash and Extended > >Master Secret Extension > > * RFC 8422: Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport > >Layer Security (TLS) > > Versions 1.2 and Earlier > > Note that 5705, 6066, and 7627 are listed as updated and not obsoleted > > Cheers, > John Preuß Mattsson > > > *From: *Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, 6 May 2026 at 01:30 > *To: *John Mattsson <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [TLS] Re: rfc8446bis status > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 2:21 AM John Mattsson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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." > > > I'm now trying to recall why we did this. ISTM that given that we are > obsoleting 5246 (already done in 8446), we should obsolete all the > other specs that only meaningfully apply to 5246. Here's the > list: > > * RFC 5077: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without > Server-Side State > * RFC 5246: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 > * RFC 5705: Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS) > * RFC 6066: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension > Definitions > * RFC 6961: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Multiple Certificate > Status Request Extension > * RFC 7627: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Hash and Extended > Master Secret Extension > * RFC 8422: Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport > Layer Security (TLS) > Versions 1.2 and Earlier > > ISTM that this standard applies to all of them, so we should just mark > them all Obsoletes. > > > > OLD: record_size_limit [RFC8849] > NEW: record_size_limit [RFC8449] > > > Fixed in auth48 branch. > > > > --- > > OLD: as described in Section 4.1.4). > NEW: as described in Section 4.1.4. > > > Fixed in auth48 branch. > > > > --- > > "A client sending a ClientHello MUST support all parameters advertised in > it" > > Shouldn't this be "MUST support all non-GREASE [RFC8701] parameters" > > > See: > https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1421 > > -Ekr > > > > --- > > > > > *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]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:19 PM Rob Sayre <[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]
