Hi Sandy, On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 at 19:24, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > 3) The following document has a normative reference to RFC 8446. Should this > be updated to refer to RFC 9846 <draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis> or should it be > published with the existing reference to RFC 8446? > > [C430] AUTH48 draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (RFC-to-be 9853)
Copying here what I wrote to Rebecca in a separate thread: ``` We refer to RFC 8446 for the presentation language (§4), some of the terminology (§1.1), and the requirement for a CSPRNG (Appendix C.1). As all of these are stable, referencing either document is essentially equivalent. There is no need to queue behind 8446bis, IMHO. ``` That said, since we are still waiting for Hannes and Achim to approve 9853, it is possible that 8446bis will be published first. At that point, updating 9853 may make sense. cheers, thanks -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
