> The last version of the draft states that the document updates RFC 9325.
> However, it is not specified in the draft which part of RFC 9325 is being
> updated and in what way.
> I believe the draft should explicitly say what is changed comparing to RFC
> 9325.
> Also please add a statement to the Abstract that this document updates RFC
> 9325.
Thanks, those are quite reasonable things to ask. :)
I think this should be part of BCP 195, so I changed this from standards-track
to BCP.
I also moved the QUICTLS and DNSTLS from normative to informative references.
Does this diff address your first point?
+# Changes to RFC 9325
+
+This document makes two changes to the recommendations in
+{{RFC9325, Section 3.1.1}}:
+
+- That section says that TLS 1.3 SHOULD be supported; this document says
+that for new protocols it MUST be supported.
+
+- That section says that TLS 1.2 MUST be supported; this document says that
+it MAY be supported as described above.
+
+ Again, these changes only apply to TLS, and not DTLS.kk
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org
