Hi Thomas, Thank you for your reply. Rebecca reminded me that she already clarified this with you - apologies for the repeat question.
Thanks! Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Mar 4, 2026, at 5:45 AM, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
