[TLS] Re: rfc8446bis status

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[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]>
> 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]>
> *Date: *Friday, 20 March 2026 at 20:27
> *To: *Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[TLS] Re: rfc8446bis status
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:19 PM Rob Sayre <[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
>
>