[TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bis?
Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Fri, 30 May 2025 16:29 UTC
Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD922ED7A2F for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 09:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 GEFUdP9W6WTL for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 09:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf29.google.com (mail-qv1-xf29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73D132ED7A22 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 09:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf29.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6f0c30a1cb6so16459506d6.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 09:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; t=1748622543; x=1749227343; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KI0YVS2os1qGf+PEEccg2mXgyF1IlmTM0luqHZirglg=; b=ioGas/1iVaM44YcqRRi4DdVIwC8Gu5F5M8b/M8xXvjT8jLS7mC4+BjERO358kZcR4w TIuqnc0R8OH+0P4cANAya2h/pPF0uHbgpDOi61FbNAqNNUo5QbCI8PnQhC49Jjh/AxeK 5mpLrJiYVJoSbrQLimhbkQ3qhVNe5waj15D+0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1748622543; x=1749227343; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KI0YVS2os1qGf+PEEccg2mXgyF1IlmTM0luqHZirglg=; b=PMN+otT8QBnkXrhPOHQJ+GatbYP+8KvjemQKBw5EwZXhvXgZnqOk/ZJcdpAk45GmBt JJ9tQG/0/jbB5FTohHNaf6VkeL8TkCvFARPaFklFjqnssF9lbZmsD3xnrqJC6/cx8LUC se8cE/CUQzqV4i/PhQqnqYZNIzdAx2FTaMFgwVlbnC7YGx7YzTR6adAnJxyq5iP3Syaz kmT3lEa3WbUraSXlFM4i15d5Yu1I/epH8Y+P56xyF5k+lYuZRWD5TlkXJAsDmjtEwvim OJ/1Hs7Aag2ChWDumdGmDXfEyc1oxDlKAykQMiezNe9+hx5gFbdi/ZJ7GtNBoPyuDRnf e5vA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxW+GntBQ8r62p38t8QcZ6g1Ach2L9m5JqRlpQMiZqZbVOz5Dk3 +H5OXxINCrLtEgML/r9Ee6SddBjVxz2/Fk+9StDy4odhNo7uV0ViHg2Q8AsXR6GOevI=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvwp34MiChtIIejyZYWrIxnwju3byp6j5RcjFxc+3XC8qcCt06wF/hTlwrNRCt DKNLGDuSxjU6jPj7aO67GTcfJHZp7HIGIO6jnEV6VECjY6+SDgmfTSgpiGpdvmBb9a8KWOm5AV6 TktCAe6wYJoDGpwU2XnrjL2sZDwD6AmxWtiiQ3k22iFLMt1+VYECyhbjK4vb8UTaIT6wEKhCCcw 9VimySGyom9avsViBOVwAuPzANDLTPwbP71xEcdvtFTisBr5X+Ey2pQlL++jElQ7mUrqAkO0NpH edgR1zW1DBfZOIS3wasQDg/tqj5To3P9Nl8ZynWyoUzqIAj+JLH+8Pm4wyy9gw2TItniuMeeyLI var0hnamEy+zn
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF1if6QXHHtytm7KL4VEsYuHirfGjFrDU6XGFDQU7SlkHtkNsrJsOd0CfWKwdN7S0UPJgkdTg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2524:b0:6fa:cc39:9f with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6facebe24e7mr70637916d6.32.1748622542954; Fri, 30 May 2025 09:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:4040:252a:8d00:e927:cbb8:2596:7b25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6fac6e2f83esm25420586d6.120.2025.05.30.09.29.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 May 2025 09:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Message-Id: <E3B57271-5471-4465-A355-1C77E827B4C3@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_17A98916-BB8B-48DE-AA50-625BB515F440"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 12:28:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <IA1PR17MB6421F6BA335F22041F12A21BCD61A@IA1PR17MB6421.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <CABcZeBM9a90HuTovaPEL3wrx1MUWE0v0-RX12pirBRwRXnw+4g@mail.gmail.com> <IA1PR17MB642172802E4C034F37B3632ECD61A@IA1PR17MB6421.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <CABcZeBMVn-ELTG1QwN59uhQWzxAqP09fLgmTbj9VLce+AimGxQ@mail.gmail.com> <IA1PR17MB6421F6BA335F22041F12A21BCD61A@IA1PR17MB6421.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.600.51.1.1)
Message-ID-Hash: LDWNX4KY4ACMLMJOMMEOZCINNFOJHZEB
X-Message-ID-Hash: LDWNX4KY4ACMLMJOMMEOZCINNFOJHZEB
X-MailFrom: sean@sn3rd.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bis?
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/MpLNyGGQ8n12Rr9CxYI7QlEIquk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>
> On May 30, 2025, at 12:08, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > I'm certainly not here to defend the distinctions between Updates and Obsoletes, etc. > > Ah yeah, I remember those discussions … > > The 8422 change is new to RFC 8446bis, so we need to address that now. > > Remove the reference. Since RFC 8446 updated four RFCs, 5705, 6066, 7627, 8422, and this one obsoletes RFC 8446 should we just drop Updates column entirely? NOTE: This was a comment I got from the IESG on -rfc8447bis; granted its and updated and not an obsoletes. spt
- [TLS] Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bis? Eric Rescorla
- [TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bi… Salz, Rich
- [TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bi… Eric Rescorla
- [TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bi… Salz, Rich
- [TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bi… Sean Turner
- [TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bi… Eric Rescorla
- [TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bi… Sean Turner