Transport Layer Security

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           R. Salz
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9851                           Akamai Technologies
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track                                      N. Aviram
Expires: 5 October 2025                                     3 April 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             January 2026

                      TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze
                     draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-08

Abstract

   Use of TLS 1.3, which fixes some known deficiencies in TLS 1.2, is
   growing.  This document specifies that no changes will be approved
   for TLS 1.2 outside of urgent security fixes (as determine determined by TLS WG
   Working Group consensus), new TLS Exporter Labels, or and new
   Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs, no
   changes will be approved for TLS 1.2. IDs.  This prescription
   applies to TLS only; it does not
   pertain apply to DTLS (in any DTLS version); it pertains to TLS only.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Transport Layer
   Security Working Group mailing list (mailto:tls@ietf.org), which is
   archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/.  Subscribe
   at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/tlswg/tls12-frozen. version).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list  It represents the consensus of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
   This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 October 2025.
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9851.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info)
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Implications for Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)  . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Use of

   TLS 1.3 [TLS13] is growing, and it fixes most known deficiencies with TLS 1.2 [TLS12].  Examples [TLS12]
   and its use is growing.  Some examples of this the fixes include
   encrypting more of the traffic so that it is not readable by
   outsiders and removing most cryptographic primitives that are now
   considered weak.  Importantly, TLS 1.3 enjoys robust security proofs.

   Both versions have several extension points.  Items like new
   cryptographic algorithms, new supported groups (formerly "named
   curves"), etc., can be added without defining a new protocol.  This
   document specifies that no changes will be approved for TLS 1.2
   outside of urgent security fixes (as
   determine determined by TLS WG consensus), Working Group
   consensus) and the exceptions listed in Section 4, no changes will be approved for TLS 1.2. 4.

   This prescription pertains applies to TLS only.  As such, it does not pertain apply to DTLS, in any
   DTLS version.

2.  Implications for Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)

   Cryptographically relevant quantum computers, once available, are
   likely to greatly lessen the time and effort needed to break RSA,
   finite-field-based Diffie-Hellman (FFDH), or Elliptic Curve
   Cryptography (ECC) which are currently used in TLS.  In 2016, the US
   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started a
   multi-year effort to standardize algorithms that will be "safe" once
   quantum computers are feasible [PQC].  First  Initial discussions in the
   IETF community happened around the same time [CFRGSLIDES].

   In 2024 2024, NIST released standards for [ML-KEM], [ML-DSA], and
   [SLH-DSA].  Many other countries and organizations are publishing
   their roadmaps, including the multi-national standards organization
   ETSI,
   ETSI [ETSI].

   While the industry was waiting for NIST to finish standardization,
   the IETF has had several efforts underway.  A working group was
   formed in early 2023 to work on the use of Post-Quantum Cryptography
   (PQC) in IETF protocols [PQUIPWG].  Several other working groups,
   including TLS [TLSWG], are working on specifications to support
   hybrid algorithms and identifiers, for use during a transition from
   classic to a post-quantum world.

   It is important to note that the focus of efforts effort within the TLS Working Group is
   focused exclusively on TLS 1.3 or later.  Put bluntly, PQC for TLS
   1.2 will not be specified (see Section 4) at any time and time; anyone wishing
   to deploy PQC should expect to be using use TLS 1.3.

3.  Security Considerations

   This entire document is about security, security and provides post-quantum
   security concerns as an additional reason to upgrade to TLS 1.3.

4.  IANA Considerations

   No TLS registries [TLS13REG] are being closed by this document.
   Rather, this document modifies the instructions to IANA and the TLS
   Designed
   Designated Experts to constrain what the type of entries that can be added
   to existing registries.

   This document does not introduce any new limits limitations on the
   registrations for either of the following two registries:

   *  TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs

   *  TLS Exporter Labels
   All other TLS registries should have this Note

   The following note has been added to them: the other TLS registries:

   |  Any TLS entry added after the IESG approves publication of {THIS RFC} RFC
   |  9851 is intended for TLS 1.3 or later, and makes no similar
   |  requirement on DTLS.  Such entries should have an informal
   |  indication like "For TLS 1.3 or later" in that entry, such as the
   |  "Comment" column.

   At the time of publication, the list of other note has been added to the following
   TLS registries is as
   follows: registries:

   *  TLS Alerts

   *  TLS Authorization Data Formats

   *  TLS CachedInformationType Values

   *  TLS Certificate Compression Algorithm IDs

   *  TLS Certificate Status Types

   *  TLS Certificate Types

   *  TLS Cipher Suites

   *  TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers

   *  TLS ContentType

   *  TLS EC Curve Types

   *  TLS EC Point Formats

   *  TLS ExtensionType Values

   *  TLS HandshakeType

   *  TLS HashAlgorithm

   *  TLS Heartbeat Message Types

   *  TLS Heartbeat Modes

   *  TLS KDF Identifiers

   *  TLS PskKeyExchangeMode

   *  TLS SignatureAlgorithm

   *  TLS SignatureScheme

   *  TLS Supplemental Data Formats (SupplementalDataType)

   *  TLS Supported Groups

   *  TLS UserMappingType Values

   Any TLS registry created after this document is approved for
   publication should indicate whether the actions defined here are
   applicable.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [TLS12]    Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246>.
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [TLS13]    Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12, 17 February 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc8446bis-12>. RFC 9846, DOI 10.17487/RFC9846, January
              2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9846>.

   [TLS13REG] Salowey, J. A. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS
              and DTLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11, 11 March RFC 9847, DOI 10.17487/RFC9847, December 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc8447bis-11>.
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9847>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [CFRGSLIDES]
              McGrew, D., "Post Quantum Secure Cryptography Discussion",
              n.d., <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-
              95-cfrg-4.pdf>.
              IETF 95 Proceedings, April 2016,
              <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-
              cfrg-4.pdf>.

   [ETSI]     ETSI, "CYBER; Migration strategies and recommendations to
              Quantum Safe schemes", n.d., Version 1.1.1, ETSI TR 103 619,
              July 2020, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
              etsi_tr/103600_103699/103619/01.01.01_60/
              tr_103619v010101p.pdf>.

   [ML-DSA]   NIST, "Module-Lattice-Based Key Digital Signature Standard",
              NIST FIPS 204, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.204, August 2024,
              <https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/204/final>.

   [ML-KEM]   NIST, "Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism
              Standard", NIST FIPS 203, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.203,
              August 2024, <https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/203/final>.

   [PQC]      NIST, "Post-Quantum Cryptography", Cryptography (PQC)", January 2017,
              <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-
              cryptography>.

   [PQUIPWG]  IETF, "Post-Quantum Use in Protocols", n.d.,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pquip/about/>.

   [SLH-DSA]  NIST, "Stateless Hash-Based Key-Digital Digital Signature Standard",
              NIST FIPS 205, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.205, August 2024,
              <https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/205/final>.

   [TLSWG]    IETF, "Transport Layer Security", n.d.,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/about/>.

Acknowledgments

   We gratefully acknowledge Amanda Baber, David Dong, and Sabrina
   Tanamal of IANA for their help in revising and clarifying Section 4.

Authors' Addresses

   Rich Salz
   Akamai Technologies
   Email: rsalz@akamai.com

   Nimrod Aviram
   Email: nimrod.aviram@gmail.com