Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have updated the citation below from Section 2.1 to
Section 3.1, as the document cited does not contain a Section 2.1.
Please review.
Original:
While Grover's algorithm (described in
Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]) allows a quantum
computer to perform a brute force key search using quadratically
fewer steps than would be required with classical computers...
Current:
While Grover's algorithm (described in
Section 3.1 of [PQC]) allows a quantum computer to perform a brute
force key search using quadratically fewer steps than would be
required with classical computers...
-->
2) <!--[rfced] Per usage throughout the document, should the following
instances of "confidentially" be updated to "confidentiality"?
Original:
The confidentially and authentication provided by the external PSK
depend on whether the external PSK is used for more than one TLS 1.3
session and the parties that know the external PSK.
...
* If the external PSK is used for a single TLS 1.3 session and it is
known only by the client and server, then the usual TLS 1.3
confidentially and authentication is provided, including the
cryptographic separation between TLS 1.3 sessions.
...
* If the external PSK is used for more than one TLS 1.3 session and
it is known only by the client and server, then the confidentially
is limited to the client and server, but there is no cryptographic
separation between TLS 1.3 sessions.
...
* If the external PSK is used for more than one TLS 1.3 session and
it is known by the client, server and others, then the
confidentially is limited to the group that knows the external
PSK, but there is no cryptographic separation between TLS 1.3
sessions.
-->
3) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we rephrase this sentence as
follows?
Original:
Once an attacker has the external PSK, they can decrypt stored
traffic if they ever gain access to a CRQC, in the same manner as a
legitimate group member.
Perhaps:
Once an attacker has the external PSK, they can decrypt stored
traffic in the same manner as a legitimate group member, if they ever
gain access to a CRQC
-->
4) <!--[rfced] To reflect RFC 9849, should "Encrypted Client Hello
extension" be updated to "'encrypted_client_hello' extension"?
Original:
The rotation of the external PSK identity or the use of
the Encrypted Client Hello extension [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] can mitigate
this risk.
Perhaps:
The rotation of the external PSK identity or the use of
the "encrypted_client_hello" extension [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] can mitigate
this risk.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Would you like the names listed in the second paragraph
in the Acknowledgments section be listed in alphabetical order, like
the first paragraph of the section?
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms
are used throughout the document. Would you like to update to using
the expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the
document for consistency?
Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC)
pre-shared key (PSK)
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature
typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
In addition, please consider whether "traditional" or "traditionally"
should be updated for clarity. This term is ambiguous, as "tradition" is
subjective because it does not mean the same thing for everyone.
-->
Thank you.
Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center
On Apr 6, 2026, at 12:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/04/06
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9973-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9973
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9973 (draft-ietf-tls-8773bis-13)
Title : TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates with an External
Pre-Shared Key
Author(s) : R. Housley
WG Chair(s) : Joseph A. Salowey, Sean Turner, Deirdre Connolly
Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
