[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9973 <draft-ietf-tls-8773bis-13> for your review

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 24 April 2026 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: auth48archive@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C68FE269D3D; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1777041119; bh=YyMCsuTPM2wwsan1u+I4CtCF09oy8XdnT+pSu0mrVAw=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=MJPUWgU1UWlWlOPfmoIX/Emm1T5Ow4t7YLdHIiqDjS16r5NZhknL/v7FcX891YRV4 6SeCPS3efJqLmkxUlU7P1tNjobitozxLGJYlRDnENFkRtFcn8c4vdmwyWPMZKigWDy /mSY59JVuRl+IVC9RS8bq4Np3Fh7wFhv5oO+gk5I=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=vigilsec.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXkwr2Vis83q; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AE66E269C96; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAE71A0650; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:31:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-96-255-71-95.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.71.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2B611A0A8F; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:31:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <F1EF6AC2-DFE0-4617-8EEC-D934515DEC3C@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A6EB8301-6EE1-4EBA-8E46-5B4A65CB3561"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\))
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:31:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <D9390E72-C2D6-41CE-ABAB-3122DF0AE85F@staff.rfc-editor.org>
To: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@staff.rfc-editor.org>
References: <20260406192605.867EE2BB1A6@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org> <2C18E30C-1073-4CCA-BC61-2D2E375B6A44@vigilsec.com> <2C6D4066-9D60-413B-A3CF-3D3DFCB417EF@staff.rfc-editor.org> <E1E5E568-6523-42ED-A7C3-3BB2B9EE9745@vigilsec.com> <D9390E72-C2D6-41CE-ABAB-3122DF0AE85F@staff.rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.400.21)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vigilsec.com; h=from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=pair-202402141609; bh=zItnq6JKbSjctYe2xIgmnKsj3u30Qdeg7rgsy7SC2jA=; b=JWUQQFgXPC3Hafepj0bpAxqrc58hDnRyE7yLNjyi93qhWHKayt0JOnaV3IDD1A4A0+M4XzNFdhTjInVQ6UIXOKSfB8w4tHcxQ7VPDUQ3I2dJZsqUdEGx97Ur+ZOPiAFHRXqaoll5c5++HL5KxvHV08rGon4gpsdLxqp5idqaiwX+EVvOWDb8mgWyGnNGSBnmqLqNmUuKLUPHNdE7GrYQpkplsrI9+u7lCvEDDkmc7zd9sACqhmGNkZzFKk5nsykG6JK2gDK4r6V/y29Im090/sJ+zeTJYoUx6i9//T5S0XBf++kO7wauN8aamj9s2hpbLtyK4tXHZv6y2aHZkQb/lw==
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.09
Message-ID-Hash: IER53OMBBQKRJGL622EDOUZ3BPWEIOYD
X-Message-ID-Hash: IER53OMBBQKRJGL622EDOUZ3BPWEIOYD
X-MailFrom: housley@vigilsec.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, tls-ads@ietf.org, tls-chairs <tls-chairs@ietf.org>, Joe Salowey <jsalowey@gmail.com>, stndrds-inacio@andrew.cmu.edu, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9973 <draft-ietf-tls-8773bis-13> for your review
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/SQGrRV4aPkMM1Lh354tieDmpAd4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:auth48archive-owner@rfc-editor.org>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:auth48archive-join@rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:auth48archive-leave@rfc-editor.org>

Alanna:

Errata 8888 was just reported.  It has already been resolved in the body of the document, but I would like to document that is has been resolved in Appendix A.

OLD:

   *  Correct the order of the arguments to HKDF-Extract when an
      external PSK is present.

NEW:

   *  Correct the order of the arguments to HKDF-Extract when an
      external PSK is present [Err8888].

This adds an additional informational reference:

   [Err8888]  RFC Errata, Erratum ID 8888, RFC 8773,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8888>.

Russ

> On Apr 8, 2026, at 11:55 AM, Alanna Paloma <apaloma@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> We have added the expansion for “PSK” back into the Introduction.
> 
> Current:
>   Second, the server can be authenticated
>   by demonstrating that it possesses a pre-shared key (PSK) that was
>   established by a previous handshake.  
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side)
> 
> 
> Additionally, your approval has been noted. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9973
> 
> As this document is part of Cluster C430, you may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C430
> 
> Note: This document normatively references RFC-to-be 9846, so it will be published at the same time as or after that document.
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you,
> Alanna Paloma
> RFC Production Center