[TLS] Re: Do we really update RFC 8422 in 8446-bis?
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 30 May 2025 17:28 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 39CC22EDD493 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 10:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20230601.gappssmtp.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 Z4_qEEIQghWj for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36]) (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 785D12EDD452 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e7d8eb10c06so1685063276.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2025 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1748626092; x=1749230892; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0MO9ilTRvA7XF2NA1Mzvi+FW2UzgwLE7P7rux3A6cLg=; b=cnQFiOQ6oVLGMIhBQlu0KXfVY0vmh3phOIpWHBSFmwiEs3XyC1QnugvjgK43aCPsqv +FnG3R0x69rZz77fmIZOPEXJ/OSdngC/TkZvJS83th3nzqQFerYn+1k8wpmmkdA6Huwu 58HHSYK25VbRwVXAhFszu+HyI5mpsRLPgtHQonHa0L27J3vBJEsEvtMyX0dgs0k1IWQH 2bYIFQpGNMOcrJh2TMhNWoBkLZ54aSZ7VOr9vZkh7t0J86cuP5BidWsv/O7F8yWmBa1o /4wzmBguiqJAH9qBIS1z/Rs3kTjsyBFu8PQbzX33qTza6MiNeMNtHEmX/cLSnV5sYaDU 3OpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1748626092; x=1749230892; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=0MO9ilTRvA7XF2NA1Mzvi+FW2UzgwLE7P7rux3A6cLg=; b=XstKoX91ZlH9mcSejVFlai0NDTOY1Wfj2J1VCz1V8Zb34P5kU1OastkWyDTyhE+Zv5 sfV1ckliBIinCGtMt+OuKJ6HmepB3gVrh3Y2AQXvv5lxrGlKlFsOxX+6ZIu7YVE6CA+l kkaFaX3EHNsKu+UWnXxF5z0dyc0a79qR4/ExqWqgzs/xEHQLuzD2Irtd8yGrYvv+qkDU HtVxaX9JRsaV9S2ApyiCzNa4o5qZJoRrOXGXiqt3DApIPlxGxPkbfVBuK0wY+ELmwbKn olHA6U5cKlWfrIQ5psOqcbZKJz2sI2D+lxehrUusTXPk6fGglakJwfFXyvdTPBHDB6gL g2ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzdAca8TuWAWpAYYgH0anACLGePUOlVGqd2eCPLL8ef0DP6kIKo iSAUcIuvpcy1Hyng/xGAEaZTvdM+Nzfv//ylkcutp7XEuG1q1FLBZnL7xzPRKLX89PEagGPJoUB fppkNPFmHwDiChTa0O1TWZjmxgtKfXd4PeJMOUIEW2A==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvEFfIw+g1PeLqDipFqmCT39YcBECwK6sVUukjsdX62Cxu5qBpB04cErvQkI6v k7qXfi2UKw71gLDUFnLwvOOIGT8WuywP42E7see6gWwhdS6KfHHJrkWdddJsa8PP/hxqhOMJR1d wuIvQg7Y5n8+Yi/zkY+VXpyM2brWXw/7RpIu8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEaleC7d1X/2GS1j9NBOwj/mlEGxU/ukzmJwD5x9ncVvpYWuU1yNBJli55kcYL+Bnip7afXmPZcH2Q71mn3WcQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:c13:b0:e80:8020:2ce with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e8080200362mr3138886276.4.1748626091701; Fri, 30 May 2025 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <E3B57271-5471-4465-A355-1C77E827B4C3@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3B57271-5471-4465-A355-1C77E827B4C3@sn3rd.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 10:27:35 -0700
X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFvwie0zO1VwMRxEpNZ2M01942kiA2ddTGGVuMP_i0mH-GfmZ_I7WxpGbcw
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMBaDR3n2kV0kNPo5mWjyMD3ze-HYKiPntdV+RU9axK2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000a8a0406365dbdba"
Message-ID-Hash: Z2PK4Q4OJ34HEHXQ7TYBHUOWAZ4LARAO
X-Message-ID-Hash: Z2PK4Q4OJ34HEHXQ7TYBHUOWAZ4LARAO
X-MailFrom: ekr@rtfm.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/fwB6M4oNeEMXQ1Q-Pw0sHitPuYs>
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>
My general view is that we should treat this RFC as replacing 8446 and so whatever should have appeared in 8446 is what should appear here. I'm certainly open to the argument that 8446 got these headers wrong, and it's not clear to me that there is a right answer. -Ekr On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 9:29 AM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > > 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