Skip to main content

New Protocols Using TLS Must Require TLS 1.3
draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-12

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-04-17
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2025-04-16
12 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Roni Even for the GENART review.
2025-04-16
12 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2025-04-15
12 Geoff Huston Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Geoff Huston. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2025-04-15
12 Geoff Huston Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Geoff Huston.
2025-04-14
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2025-04-14
12 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2025-04-14
12 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2025-04-14
12 Jim Reid Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston
2025-04-14
12 Deb Cooley
[Ballot comment]
Edit:  Thanks for the quick work to address my discuss.


Thank you to Hillarie Orman for their secdir review.

Title:  While I'm not …
[Ballot comment]
Edit:  Thanks for the quick work to address my discuss.


Thank you to Hillarie Orman for their secdir review.

Title:  While I'm not generally a fan of suggesting title changes, it may be warranted here.  Perhaps, 'New Protocols Utilizing TLS Must Require TLS 1.3'.

Abstract:  I think you are burying the lead here.  Perhaps:  'TLS 1.3 use is widespread, it has had comprehensive security proofs, and it improves both security and privacy over TLS 1.2.  Therefore, new protocols that use TLS must require TLS 1.3.  As DTLS 1.3 is not widely available or deployed, this prescription does not pertain to DTLS (in any DTLS version); it pertains to TLS only.

This document updates RFC9325, discusses post-quantum cryptography and the security and privacy improvements over TLS 1.2 as a rationale for that update.'

Introduction:  For similar reasons (burying the lead), I would put the third para first, and then swap the first and second paragraph (some small changes will be needed - remove 'also').

Section 6, para 2:  'extension points'?  maybe just 'extensions'?  [or add 'points' to all the places 'extension' is used in the para.
2025-04-14
12 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deb Cooley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2025-04-14
12 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-12.txt
2025-04-14
12 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-04-14
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-04-14
12 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-04-14
11 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-11.txt
2025-04-14
11 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-04-14
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-04-14
11 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-04-14
10 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2025-04-13
10 Deb Cooley
[Ballot discuss]
Section 6, para 3, sentence 1:  All Finite Field DH?  Or all except those using ephemeral FFDH specified in RFC7919?  If FFDHE …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 6, para 3, sentence 1:  All Finite Field DH?  Or all except those using ephemeral FFDH specified in RFC7919?  If FFDHE with one of RFC7919 groups are used, what is the vulnerability?  I think you could add the word 'most' in front of 'finite field DH'.  And you could reference RFC 7919, but I won't require it.  [I will note that TLS1.3 allows FFDHE]
2025-04-13
10 Deb Cooley
[Ballot comment]

Thank you to Hillarie Orman for their secdir review.

Title:  While I'm not generally a fan of suggesting title changes, it may be …
[Ballot comment]

Thank you to Hillarie Orman for their secdir review.

Title:  While I'm not generally a fan of suggesting title changes, it may be warranted here.  Perhaps, 'New Protocols Utilizing TLS Must Require TLS 1.3'.

Abstract:  I think you are burying the lead here.  Perhaps:  'TLS 1.3 use is widespread, it has had comprehensive security proofs, and it improves both security and privacy over TLS 1.2.  Therefore, new protocols that use TLS must require TLS 1.3.  As DTLS 1.3 is not widely available or deployed, this prescription does not pertain to DTLS (in any DTLS version); it pertains to TLS only.

This document updates RFC9325, discusses post-quantum cryptography and the security and privacy improvements over TLS 1.2 as a rationale for that update.'

Introduction:  For similar reasons (burying the lead), I would put the third para first, and then swap the first and second paragraph (some small changes will be needed - remove 'also').

Section 6, para 2:  'extension points'?  maybe just 'extensions'?  [or add 'points' to all the places 'extension' is used in the para.
2025-04-13
10 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2025-04-11
10 Mike Bishop
[Ballot comment]
Worth clarifying throughout that protocols *which use TLS* must use TLS 1.3 (or later). This document isn't (I believe) attempting to mandate that …
[Ballot comment]
Worth clarifying throughout that protocols *which use TLS* must use TLS 1.3 (or later). This document isn't (I believe) attempting to mandate that all protocols use TLS in all contexts.

Section 5, the "small changes" are small by text size, but substantial in impact. Referring to the changes as "small" seems unnecessary.
2025-04-11
10 Mike Bishop [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mike Bishop
2025-04-11
10 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2025-04-10
10 Bo Wu Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Samier already reviewed.
2025-04-10
10 Bo Wu Assignment of request for Telechat review by OPSDIR to Tianran Zhou was withdrawn
2025-04-09
10 Ketan Talaulikar [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ketan Talaulikar
2025-04-09
10 Andy Newton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andy Newton
2025-04-07
10 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10

CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is always useful …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10

CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is always useful to stress the important security standards.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Valery Smyslov for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus ***but it lacks*** the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Scott Rose, the DNS directorate reviewer, please consider this int-dir review and one typo:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10-dnsdir-telechat-rose-2025-03-27/ (and I have read reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Title

Should the title be "At Least v1.3 of TLS" ?

### Abstract

The sentence about example does not really fit an abstract, please remove.

Unsure how to read `fixed weaknesses in TLS 1.2` ? I.e, if they are fixed, then why move to TLS 1.3 ?

### Section 1

The first paragraph is somehow self-contradicting "good security properties" vs. "several deficiencies" vs. "bespoke configuration".

### Section 4

I would remove the DoT counter-example, it is only confusing.

Isn't the set of crypto algorithms also part of the negotiation ? I.e., a 'stupid' configuration could have TLS 1.2 with really good crypto and TLS 1.3 with average one (in a couple of years). Should the text mention this as well ?

### Section 6

While this section proposes mitigations to some attacks against TLS 1.2, it does not do so for *all* attacks while section claims that bespoke configuration can fix all weaknesses of TLS 1.2.
2025-04-07
10 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2025-03-31
10 Bo Wu Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou
2025-03-27
10 Scott Rose Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Scott Rose. Sent review to list.
2025-03-27
10 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10.txt
2025-03-27
10 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-03-27
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-03-27
10 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-03-27
09 Samir Barguil Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Samir Barguil. Review has been revised by Samir Barguil.
2025-03-26
09 Mohamed Boucadair
[Ballot comment]
Thanks Rich for this document.

Thanks also to Samier for his first opsdir review.

I fully support. Some clarity is needed to unambiguously …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks Rich for this document.

Thanks also to Samier for his first opsdir review.

I fully support. Some clarity is needed to unambiguously characterize which "new protocols" we are covering. A fix for this and other edits were shared with Rich using a PR. I'm removing that link and include the changes in the ballot itself.

Apologies for the inconvenience.

# Title

## Clarify this is for TLS-based protocols

OLD: "New Protocols Must Require TLS 1.3"
NEW: "New Protocols with TLS Support Must Require TLS 1.3"

# Section 1

## Clarify this is for TLS-based protocols

OLD: For these reasons, new protocols must require and
NEW: For these reasons, new protocols with TLS support must require and

## minor edit

OLD: Note that addressing them usually requires bespoke configuration.
NEW: Addressing them usually requires bespoke configuration.

## minor edit

OLD:
  removing most cryptographic primitives considered dangerous. Importantly, TLS
  1.3 enjoys robust security proofs and provides excellent security without
  any additional configuration.

NEW:
  removing most cryptographic primitives considered dangerous. Importantly, compared to TLS1.2, TLS
  1.3 provides better security without any additional configuration.


## Clarify this is for TLS-based protocols

OLD: This document specifies that, since TLS 1.3 use is widespread, new protocols
NEW: This document specifies that, since TLS 1.3 use is widespread, new protocols with TLS support


# Section 3

## nit

OLD: Implications for post-quantum cryptography
NEW: Implications for Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)


## clarify impact + nits

OLD:
  have a huge impact on TLS traffic. To mitigate this, TLS applications
  will need to migrate to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) [PQC].
  Detailed consideration of when any application requires PQC, or when
  a CRQC is a threat they need to protect against, is beyond the

NEW:
  have a huge impact on TLS traffic (see, e.g., Section 2 of [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]). To mitigate this, TLS applications
  will need to migrate to Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) [PQC].
  Detailed considerations of when an application requires PQC or when
  a CRQC is a threat that an application need to protect against, are beyond the


## nit

OLD: For TLS it is important to note that the focus of these efforts is TLS 1.3
NEW: It is important to note that the focus of these PQC efforts for TLS is TLS 1.3


## Clarify this is for TLS-based protocols

OLD: This is one more reason for new protocols to default to TLS 1.3, where
NEW: This is one more reason for new protocols requiring TLS service to default to TLS 1.3, where

# Section 4


## nit

OLD: then clients SHOULD specify just the minimum
NEW: then clients SHOULD specify the minimum


# Section 5

## nit

OLD: RFC 9325 provides recommendations for ensuring the security of deployed
NEW: [RFC9325] provides recommendations for ensuring the security of deployed


## nit

OLD:
  At the time it was published, it described availability of TLS 1.3
  as "widely available." The transition and adoption mentioned in that
  documnent has grown, and this document now makes two small changes

NEW:
  At the time it was published, it described availability of TLS 1.3
  as "widely available". The transition and adoption mentioned in that
  document has grown, and this document now makes two small changes

## clarify this is for tls-based protocols

OLD:
  That section says that TLS 1.3 SHOULD be supported; this document says
  that for new protocols it MUST be supported.

NEW:
  That section says that TLS 1.3 SHOULD be supported; this document mandates
  that TLS 1.3 MUST be supported for new TLS-based protocols.

## nit

OLD:
  That section says that TLS 1.2 MUST be supported; this document says that
  it MAY be supported as described above.

NEW:
  That section says that TLS 1.2 MUST be supported; this document says that
  TLS 1.2 MAY be supported.

# Section 6

## nit

OLD: See [I-D.draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex] for details.
NEW: See [I-D.ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex] for details.

## nit

OLD: years exploiting CBC cipher suites; refer to e.g. [CBCSCANNING]
OLD: years exploiting CBC cipher suites; refer to, e.g., [CBCSCANNING]

Cheers,
Med
2025-03-26
09 Mohamed Boucadair Ballot comment text updated for Mohamed Boucadair
2025-03-25
09 Jim Reid Assignment of request for Telechat review by DNSDIR to Ralf Weber was rejected
2025-03-25
09 Jim Reid Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR is assigned to Scott Rose
2025-03-25
09 Jim Reid Request for Telechat review by DNSDIR is assigned to Ralf Weber
2025-03-25
09 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-09.txt
2025-03-25
09 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-03-25
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-03-25
09 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-03-24
08 Gorry Fairhurst [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gorry Fairhurst
2025-03-24
08 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-08.txt
2025-03-24
08 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-03-24
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-03-24
08 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-03-24
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2025-03-24
07 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-07.txt
2025-03-24
07 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-03-24
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-03-24
07 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-03-20
06 Mohamed Boucadair
[Ballot comment]
Thanks Rich for this document.

Thanks also to Samier for his first opsdir review.

I fully support. Some clarity is needed to unambiguously …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks Rich for this document.

Thanks also to Samier for his first opsdir review.

I fully support. Some clarity is needed to unambiguously characterize which "new protocols" we are covering. A fix for this and other edits were shared with Rich using this PR: https://github.com/richsalz/draft-use-tls13/pull/6

Cheers,
Med
2025-03-20
06 Mohamed Boucadair [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mohamed Boucadair
2025-03-14
06 Samir Barguil Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Samir Barguil. Sent review to list.
2025-03-12
06 Carlos Pignataro Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Samir Barguil
2025-03-05
06 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-06
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/

## Comments …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-06
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/

## Comments

### S4

* "When the API allows it, clients SHOULD specify just the minimum version
  they want."

  I struggled with this phrasing and attempting to reconcile it with the
  broader goal of requiring TLS1.3.  What is really meant here, and could
  it be more clearly stated?

## Nits

### S5

* "At this time it was published" ->
  "At the time it was published"
2025-03-05
06 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2025-03-04
06 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2025-04-17
2025-03-04
06 Paul Wouters Ballot has been issued
2025-03-04
06 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2025-03-04
06 Paul Wouters Created "Approve" ballot
2025-03-04
06 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2025-03-04
06 Paul Wouters Ballot writeup was changed
2025-03-04
06 Hilarie Orman Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. Sent review to list.
2025-03-04
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2025-03-03
06 Martin Duke Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Martin Duke. Sent review to list.
2025-03-03
06 David Dong
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

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
2025-03-03
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2025-02-28
06 Geoff Huston Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Geoff Huston. Sent review to list.
2025-02-27
06 Geoff Huston Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston
2025-02-27
06 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2025-02-26
06 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-06.txt
2025-02-26
06 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-02-26
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-02-26
06 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-02-24
05 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Martin Duke
2025-02-23
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman
2025-02-21
05 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. Sent review to list.
2025-02-20
05 Geoff Huston Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Geoff Huston. Sent review to list.
2025-02-20
05 Geoff Huston Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston
2025-02-20
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2025-02-19
05 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Barry Leiba
2025-02-18
05 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2025-02-18
05 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-03-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, uta-chairs@ietf.org, uta@ietf.org, valery@smyslov.net …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-03-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, uta-chairs@ietf.org, uta@ietf.org, valery@smyslov.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (New Protocols Must Require TLS 1.3) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Using TLS in Applications WG (uta)
to consider the following document: - 'New Protocols Must Require TLS 1.3'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2025-03-04. 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


  TLS 1.2 is in use and can be configured such that it provides good
  security properties.  TLS 1.3 use is increasing, and fixes some known
  deficiencies with TLS 1.2, such as removing error-prone cryptographic
  primitives and encrypting more of the traffic so that it is not
  readable by outsiders.  For these reasons, new protocols must require
  and assume the existence of TLS 1.3.  As DTLS 1.3 is not widely
  available or deployed, this prescription does not pertain to DTLS (in
  any DTLS version); it pertains to TLS only.

  This document updates RFC9325.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13/



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




2025-02-18
05 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2025-02-18
05 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2025-02-17
05 Paul Wouters Last call was requested
2025-02-17
05 Paul Wouters Ballot approval text was generated
2025-02-17
05 Paul Wouters Ballot writeup was generated
2025-02-17
05 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2025-02-17
05 Paul Wouters Last call announcement was generated
2025-02-11
05 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2025-02-11
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2025-02-11
05 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-05.txt
2025-02-11
05 Rich Salz New version approved
2025-02-11
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2025-02-11
05 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2025-01-28
04 (System) Changed action holders to Rich Salz, Paul Wouters, Nimrod Aviram (IESG state changed)
2025-01-28
04 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested::AD Followup
2025-01-28
04 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Publication Requested::AD Followup from Publication Requested
2024-12-31
04 Valery Smyslov
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 …
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?

The draft that required support for TLS 1.3 and freezed the development of TLS 1.2
was initially present to the TLS WG. Later it was split into two drafts - one
freezing TLS 1.2 (in TLS WG) and the other - requiring support for TLS 1.3 (in UTA WG).
The drafts are related: since TLS 1.2 is frozen, only TLS 1.3 would be developed,
thus it must be supported by new protocols.

For some reason, the first draft (draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen) was mostly discussed.
This draft (draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13) was only lightly discussed in UTA WG,
perhaps because its content was believed to be obvious.

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

No.

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.)

No.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document doesn't define a protocol. There are numerous implementations of TLS 1.3.

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.

This document is closely related to draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen in TLS WG.
The two document were discussed together, inparticular the chairs of UTA and TLS WGs
issued the Working Group Last Calls at the same time with cross-announcements.

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.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

The document does not contain YANG modules.

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.

Not applicable.

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 document is complete and clear, it is ready for AD review.

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

No early directorate reviwes were performed.

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

Best Current Practice as indictaed in the document and in the datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Yes.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/51-tGzR3qMS2nQTP0G3FzOdboIc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/9uBDl8lQnysti5agLA2YRJLzy20/

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.

Yes.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/51-tGzR3qMS2nQTP0G3FzOdboIc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/9uBDl8lQnysti5agLA2YRJLzy20/

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

idnits complains about 1 line with non-ascii characters.
idnits also indicates that normatively referencing RFC5246 is an error
(since RFC8446 obsoleted it). Since this document discusses
TLS 1.2 problems, it seems to me that reference to RFC 5246 should
be normative.

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

In my opinion references are correctly splitted, but see above about RFC5246.

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

All normative references are freely available.

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

The document normatively references draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen, which has an intended status "Informational"
and is not listed in the DOWNREF registry. I think, this reference is justified,
since the drafts are related and draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen caused the existence of this document.
In addition, one normative reference is to the obsoleted RFC (to RFC 5246).

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?

No.

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.

This document updates RFC9325. This is listed in the title page, abstract
and is mentioned in the introduction.

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).

The document does not contain IANA considerations.

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.

The document does not request any IANA actions.

2024-12-31
04 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-12-31
04 Valery Smyslov IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-12-31
04 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2024-12-31
04 Valery Smyslov Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters
2024-12-31
04 Valery Smyslov Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-12-31
04 Valery Smyslov Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2024-12-31
04 Valery Smyslov
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 …
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?

The draft that required support for TLS 1.3 and freezed the development of TLS 1.2
was initially present to the TLS WG. Later it was split into two drafts - one
freezing TLS 1.2 (in TLS WG) and the other - requiring support for TLS 1.3 (in UTA WG).
The drafts are related: since TLS 1.2 is frozen, only TLS 1.3 would be developed,
thus it must be supported by new protocols.

For some reason, the first draft (draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen) was mostly discussed.
This draft (draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13) was only lightly discussed in UTA WG,
perhaps because its content was believed to be obvious.

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

No.

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.)

No.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document doesn't define a protocol. There are numerous implementations of TLS 1.3.

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.

This document is closely related to draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen in TLS WG.
The two document were discussed together, inparticular the chairs of UTA and TLS WGs
issued the Working Group Last Calls at the same time with cross-announcements.

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.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

The document does not contain YANG modules.

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.

Not applicable.

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 document is complete and clear, it is ready for AD review.

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

No early directorate reviwes were performed.

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

Best Current Practice as indictaed in the document and in the datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Yes.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/51-tGzR3qMS2nQTP0G3FzOdboIc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/9uBDl8lQnysti5agLA2YRJLzy20/

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.

Yes.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/51-tGzR3qMS2nQTP0G3FzOdboIc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/9uBDl8lQnysti5agLA2YRJLzy20/

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

idnits complains about 1 line with non-ascii characters.
idnits also indicates that normatively referencing RFC5246 is an error
(since RFC8446 obsoleted it). Since this document discusses
TLS 1.2 problems, it seems to me that reference to RFC 5246 should
be normative.

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

In my opinion references are correctly splitted, but see above about RFC5246.

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

All normative references are freely available.

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

The document normatively references draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen, which has an intended status "Informational"
and is not listed in the DOWNREF registry. I think, this reference is justified,
since the drafts are related and draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen caused the existence of this document.
In addition, one normative reference is to the obsoleted RFC (to RFC 5246).

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?

No.

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.

This document updates RFC9325. This is listed in the title page, abstract
and is mentioned in the introduction.

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).

The document does not contain IANA considerations.

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.

The document does not request any IANA actions.

2024-12-30
04 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-04.txt
2024-12-30
04 Rich Salz New version approved
2024-12-30
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2024-12-30
04 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2024-12-24
03 Valery Smyslov Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2024-12-23
03 Valery Smyslov Notification list changed to valery@smyslov.net because the document shepherd was set
2024-12-23
03 Valery Smyslov Document shepherd changed to Valery Smyslov
2024-12-23
03 Valery Smyslov Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-12-23
03 Valery Smyslov Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2024-12-23
03 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-12-09
03 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-03.txt
2024-12-09
03 Rich Salz New version approved
2024-12-09
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2024-12-09
03 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2024-12-03
02 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-08-30
02 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-02.txt
2024-08-30
02 Rich Salz New version approved
2024-08-30
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nimrod Aviram , Rich Salz
2024-08-30
02 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2024-07-24
01 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-01.txt
2024-07-24
01 Rich Salz New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rich Salz)
2024-07-24
01 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2024-04-19
00 Valery Smyslov This document now replaces draft-rsalz-uta-require-tls13 instead of None
2024-04-19
00 Rich Salz New version available: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-00.txt
2024-04-19
00 Valery Smyslov WG -00 approved
2024-04-19
00 Rich Salz Set submitter to "Rich Salz ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: uta-chairs@ietf.org
2024-04-19
00 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision