The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-14

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this clean and well-written revision. I have only a few minor observations which can be incorporated at the discretion of the author and the responsible AD:
===

In the list of diffs, one of the bullets appears to be two changes. Should these be separate bullets, or should a sentence be added before these two explaining how they're connected?

>Restore text defining the level of "close_notify" to "warning".
>Clarify behavior around "user_canceled", requiring that
>"close_notify" be sent and that "user_canceled" should be ignored.

===

The language around the SCSV for pre-1.2 values feels odd. You MUST NOT negotiate older versions, but if you do anyway, you MUST do it this way? I would shift this to a description of how clients and servers were required to behave prior to this revision of 1.3 at most.

===

CURRENT: select a group based "supported_groups"

CONSIDER: select a group based on "supported_groups"

===

OLD: For X25519 and X448, the contents of the public value are the byte string inputs and outputs of the corresponding functions....

CURRENT: For X25519 and X448, the contents of the public value is the K_A or K_B value....

CONSIDER: For X25519 and X448, the content of the public value is the K_A or K_B value....

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this clean and well-written revision. I have only a few minor observations which can be incorporated at the discretion of the author and the responsible AD:

In the list of diffs, one of the bullets appears to be two changes. Should these be separate bullets, or should a sentence be added before these two explaining how they're connected?

>Restore text defining the level of "close_notify" to "warning".
>Clarify behavior around "user_canceled", requiring that
>"close_notify" be sent and that "user_canceled" should be ignored.

The language around the SCSV for pre-1.2 values feels odd. You MUST NOT negotiate older versions, but if you do anyway, you MUST do it this way? I would shift this to a description of how clients and servers were required to behave prior to this revision of 1.3 at most.

CURRENT: select a group based "supported_groups"
CONSIDER: select a group based on "supported_groups"

OLD: For X25519 and X448, the contents of the public value are the byte string inputs and outputs of the corresponding functions....
CURRENT: For X25519 and X448, the contents of the public value is the K_A or K_B value....
CONSIDER: For X25519 and X448, the content of the public value is the K_A or K_B value....

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors, contributors, and the WG for the work on this important document.

I have the following comments/suggestions to offer on this document.

1) In the abstract ... and this is assuming that this document is not actually obsoleting 8422 ...

CURRENT
This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.

SUGGEST
This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes RFC 8446. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.

2) Please state in the introduction section on what part of 8422 is being updated by this document.

3) RFCs 5077, 5246 and 6961 were actually obsoleted by RFC 8446 and not this document. Please rephrase some of the references to those documents saying that they were obsoleted by RFC 8446 and not "this document".

4) Ref section 1.4 - does this document also not update RFC7627 with its terminology change?

5) I found the IANA consideration section hard to follow in terms of clarity on what exactly is the action for IANA team from this document. Section 11.1 has clear actions but the parent section 11 is perhaps having some remnant actions from RFC8446 that might be confusing. If all that the section 11 talks about is something that IANA has already done, perhaps simply a description of the IANA registries pertaining to this document (previously pertaining to RFC8446) without talking about any action that was done or to be done would be more clear? And then there is 11.1 for the actual IANA work/actions to be done?

6) I believe there is an error with the reference to RFC8444. That one is a OSPF routing protocol extension and don't see how that comes into TLS land.

[Ballot comment]
I have reviewed the changes with respect to RFC 8446. Thank you for this update!

I'd suggest looking at the whole I-D for the phrase "in order" to ensure that no ambiguity could be intoduced by reading this as an sequence ordering requirement, rather than a logical condition in the writing style. In at least one place I was unsure: e.g., I wonder if /though endpoints are able to pad TLS records in order to obscure lengths/ is better as /though endpoints are able to pad TLS records to obscure lengths/ or /though endpoints are able to obscure lengths by padding TLS records/.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S4.2.11.2

* "which may or may match" -> "which may or may not match"?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Yoav Nir for their secdir review.

This is a nice refresh of RFC 8446 (how the heck was RFC8446 published almost 7 years ago?).

[Ballot comment]
Hi Eric,

Thanks for the effort put into the maintenance of this key specification.

I reviewed only the diff vs. RFC8446. Please find below some few comments, most are nits:

# No need to obsolete already obsoleted RFCs (RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422). Likewise, I didn’t find new updates of 5705 and 6066 beyond what was already updated by RFC8446.

CURRENT:
  This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes
  RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446.  This document also specifies
  new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.

# (nit) Introduction: “application protocols ..with their application protocol”

OLD:
Application protocols using TLS
  MUST specify how TLS works with their application protocol, including
  how and when handshaking occurs, and how to do identity verification.

Maybe

NEW:
  Applications using TLS
  MUST specify how TLS works with their application protocol, including
  how and when handshaking occurs, and how to do identity verification.

# (nit) 4.2.8: omission and inclusion

OLD:
  For this reason, the omission of a share for group A and inclusion of
  one for group B does not mean that the client prefers B to A.

NEW:
  For this reason, the omission of a share for group A and inclusion of
  one for group B do not mean that the client prefers B to A.

# (nit) 4.2.8.1

OLD: the contents of the public value is
NEW: the contents of the public value are

# (nit) Section 11: please double check this sentence:

CURRENT:
The changes
  between [RFC8446] and [RFC8447] this document are described in
  Section 11.1.  IANA has updated these to reference this document.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]
When looking at the idnits tool there are quiet a number of messages to look at, and not fully explained in doc shepherds writeup

Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about the third action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, IANA will update all references to RFC8446 and change them to [ RFC-to-be ] in the following registries:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/acl-tls/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/channel-binding-types/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-proxy-status/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

as well as on the IANA Matrix at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/

Second, in the TLS ExtensionType Values registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry group, the registration for Value: 23; Extension Name: extended_master_secret will be changed to:

Value: 23
Extension Name: extended_main_secret
TLS 1.3: -
DTLS-Only: N
Recommended: Y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the TLS Alerts registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Value: 117
Description: general_error
DTLS-OK:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment:

IANA Question --> What should the entry for "DTLS-OK" be for this new registration?

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, sean@sn3rd.com, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: - 'The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.3'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-01. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security
  (TLS) protocol.  TLS allows client/server applications to communicate
  over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping,
  tampering, and message forgery.

  This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes
  RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446.  This document also specifies
  new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8439: ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols (Informational - Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) stream)
    rfc6962: Certificate Transparency (Experimental - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This I-D represents the consensus on the WG; note that this is a “bis” and targeted clarifications and not major changes. We did a WG call in March ‘23. For issues & pull requests with substantive changes that were filed since, we ran consensus calls for each.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

I would not say that there was much controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

There have been no threats of appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are numerous implementations of TLS 1.3; this I-D is to make clarifications for those implementations. No existing implementations are not listed in the I-D.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

TLS 1.3 is used a lot, but is most likely most related to QUIC; QUIC uses the TLS 1.3 handshake mechanism. While the I-D has not been sent to the WG for review specifically, I do know that those who implemented QUIC have reviewed this I-D, e.g., Google, Mozilla, Safari, Cloudflare, Akamai, Microsoft, etc.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The Shepherd believes that this document is ready to go.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

As this a bis, these checks performed for draft-ietf-tls-tls13 still hold. I do not believe that any changes made change anything WRT to those previous reviews for common issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards Track is requested. This I-D is obsoleting RFC 8446, which was also Standards Track, so the request makes sense.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The Shepherd has confirmed with the author that all required disclosures have been filed.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The Shepherd has confirmed with the author that they are willing to be an author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

-11 has the following nits, but none should stop the I-D from progressing:

* Long lines: We will leave these to AUTH48
* RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446 not being mentioned in abstract
  as obsoleted: they are there there
* DOWNREFs: All are fine and were present in RFC 8446
* Obsolete REFs: All are fine and are they are there on purpose

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I believe the references are properly categorized.

NOTE: There does appear to be an issue with the RFC 8996 reference.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.

N/A; no new DOWNREFs were introduced by this I-D.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

See q17.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Obviously, this I-D obsoletes RFC 8446 and the metadata, title page, abstract, and introduction all explain this.

This I-D also adds that it updates 7627 & 8422. The metadata, title page, and abstract explain this. 7627 is mentioned in the introduction; 8422 is not. 4492, which 8422, updates should have been in the RFC 8446 metadata because it removed point compression (this is noted in the intro), but we missed including 4492 in the metadata. Now 4492 has been obsoleted by 8422. See the following for the discussion: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1229/files.

I will let others bikeshed on whether the Obsoletes header should stay as is:
Obsoletes: 8446
or include the previous Obsoletes info as follows:
Obsoletes: 5077, 5246, 6961, 8446
Note we did have a PR for this:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1309
and a PR:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1322

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

S11: The diff between RFC 8446 and this I-D shows that we addressed an errata; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5976.

S11.1 clearly identifies new IANA considerations. There are three and they are correct.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This I-D represents the consensus on the WG; note that this is a “bis” and targeted clarifications and not major changes. We did a WG call in March ‘23. For issues & pull requests with substantive changes that were filed since, we ran consensus calls for each.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

I would not say that there was much controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

There have been no threats of appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are numerous implementations of TLS 1.3; this I-D is to make clarifications for those implementations. No existing implementations are not listed in the I-D.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

TLS 1.3 is used a lot, but is most likely most related to QUIC; QUIC uses the TLS 1.3 handshake mechanism. While the I-D has not been sent to the WG for review specifically, I do know that those who implemented QUIC have reviewed this I-D, e.g., Google, Mozilla, Safari, Cloudflare, Akamai, Microsoft, etc.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The Shepherd believes that this document is ready to go.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

As this a bis, these checks performed for draft-ietf-tls-tls13 still hold. I do not believe that any changes made change anything WRT to those previous reviews for common issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards Track is requested. This I-D is obsoleting RFC 8446, which was also Standards Track, so the request makes sense.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The Shepherd has confirmed with the author that all required disclosures have been filed.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The Shepherd has confirmed with the author that they are willing to be an author.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

-11 has the following nits, but none should stop the I-D from progressing:

* Long lines: We will leave these to AUTH48
* RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446 not being mentioned in abstract
  as obsoleted: they are there there
* DOWNREFs: All are fine and were present in RFC 8446
* Obsolete REFs: All are fine and are they are there on purpose

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I believe the references are properly categorized.

NOTE: There does appear to be an issue with the RFC 8996 reference.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.

N/A; no new DOWNREFs were introduced by this I-D.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

See q17.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Obviously, this I-D obsoletes RFC 8446 and the metadata, title page, abstract, and introduction all explain this.

This I-D also adds that it updates 7627 & 8422. The metadata, title page, and abstract explain this. 7627 is mentioned in the introduction; 8422 is not. 4492, which 8422, updates should have been in the RFC 8446 metadata because it removed point compression (this is noted in the intro), but we missed including 4492 in the metadata. Now 4492 has been obsoleted by 8422. See the following for the discussion: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1229/files.

I will let others bikeshed on whether the Obsoletes header should stay as is:
Obsoletes: 8446
or include the previous Obsoletes info as follows:
Obsoletes: 5077, 5246, 6961, 8446
Note we did have a PR for this:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1309
and a PR:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1322

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

S11: The diff between RFC 8446 and this I-D shows that we addressed an errata; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5976.

S11.1 clearly identifies new IANA considerations. There are three and they are correct.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Forgot to change the state after the WGLC closed.

I added revised I-D needed because we know there are some changes coming as a result of discussion at IETF 118.