[TLS] Re: rfc8446bis status

[John Mattsson <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2026 at 01:30
To: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Re: rfc8446bis status



On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 2:21 AM John Mattsson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, 20 March 2026 at 20:27
To: Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [TLS] Re: rfc8446bis status

--



On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:19 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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