<?xml version='1.0'encoding='utf-8'?>encoding='UTF-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfc [ <!ENTITY nbsp " "> <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> ]><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?> <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.27 (Ruby 2.6.10) --><rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-08" number="9851" updates="" obsoletes="" xml:lang="en" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3"><!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.28.0 --><front> <titleabbrev="tls1.2-frozen">TLSabbrev="TLS 1.2 Frozen">TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze</title> <seriesInfoname="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-08"/>name="RFC" value="9851"/> <author fullname="Rich Salz"> <organization>Akamai Technologies</organization> <address> <email>rsalz@akamai.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Nimrod Aviram"> <organization/> <address> <email>nimrod.aviram@gmail.com</email> </address> </author> <dateyear="2025" month="April" day="03"/> <area>Security</area> <workgroup>Transport Layer Security</workgroup>year="2026" month="January"/> <area>SEC</area> <workgroup>tls</workgroup> <keyword>TLS</keyword> <keyword>features</keyword> <abstract><?line 70?><t>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 (asdeterminedetermined by TLSWGWorking Group consensus), new TLS Exporter Labels,orand new Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ProtocolIDs, no changes will be approved for TLS 1.2.IDs. Thisprescriptionapplies to TLS only; it does notpertainapply to DTLS (in any DTLSversion); it pertains to TLS only.</t>version).</t> </abstract><note removeInRFC="true"> <name>About This Document</name> <t> Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen/"/>. </t> <t> Discussion of this document takes place on the Transport Layer Security Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:tls@ietf.org"/>), which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/"/>. Subscribe at <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls/"/>. </t> <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at <eref target="https://github.com/tlswg/tls12-frozen"/>.</t> </note></front> <middle><?line 80?><section anchor="sec-reasons"> <name>Introduction</name><t>Use of TLS<t>TLS 1.3 <xreftarget="TLS13"/> is growing, and ittarget="RFC9846"/> fixes most known deficiencies with TLS 1.2 <xreftarget="TLS12"/>. Examplestarget="RFC5246"/> and its use is growing. Some examples ofthisthe 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.</t> <t>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 (asdeterminedetermined by TLSWG consensus),Working Group consensus) and the exceptions listed in <xreftarget="iana"/>, no changes will be approved for TLS 1.2.</t>target="iana"/>.</t> <t>Thisprescription pertainsapplies to TLS only. As such, it does notpertainapply to DTLS, in any DTLS version.</t> </section> <section anchor="implications-for-post-quantum-cryptography-pqc"> <name>Implications for Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)</name> <t>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 <xref target="PQC"/>.FirstInitial discussions in the IETF community happened around the same time <xref target="CFRGSLIDES"/>.</t> <t>In20242024, NIST released standards for <xref target="ML-KEM"/>, <xref target="ML-DSA"/>, and <xref target="SLH-DSA"/>. Many other countries and organizations are publishing their roadmaps, including the multi-national standards organizationETSI,ETSI <xref target="ETSI"/>.</t> <t>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 <xref target="PQUIPWG"/>. Several other working groups, including TLS <xref target="TLSWG"/>, are working on specifications to support hybrid algorithms and identifiers, for use during a transition from classic to a post-quantum world.</t> <t>It is important to note thatthe focus of effortseffort 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 <xref target="iana"/>) at anytime andtime; anyone wishing to deploy PQC should expect tobe usinguse TLS 1.3.</t> </section> <section anchor="security-considerations"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t>This entire document is aboutsecurity,security and provides post-quantum security concerns as an additional reason to upgrade to TLS 1.3.</t> </section> <section anchor="iana"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>No TLS registries <xreftarget="TLS13REG"/>target="RFC9847"/> are being closed by this document. Rather, this document modifies the instructions to IANA and the TLSDesignedDesignated Experts to constrainwhatthe type of entries that can be added to existing registries.</t> <t>This document does not introduce any newlimitslimitations on the registrations for either of the following two registries:</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Exporter Labels</t> </li> </ul><dl> <dt>All other TLS registries should have this Note<t>The following note has been added tothem:</dt> <dd> <t>Anythe other TLS registries:</t> <blockquote><t>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.</t> </dd> </dl>column.</t></blockquote> <t>At the time of publication, thelist of othernote has been added to the following TLSregistries is as follows:</t>registries:</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>TLS Alerts</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Authorization Data Formats</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS CachedInformationType Values</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Certificate Compression Algorithm IDs</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Certificate Status Types</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Certificate Types</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Cipher Suites</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS ContentType</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS EC Curve Types</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS EC Point Formats</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS ExtensionType Values</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS HandshakeType</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS HashAlgorithm</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Heartbeat Message Types</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Heartbeat Modes</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS KDF Identifiers</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS PskKeyExchangeMode</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS SignatureAlgorithm</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS SignatureScheme</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Supplemental Data Formats (SupplementalDataType)</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS Supported Groups</t> </li> <li> <t>TLS UserMappingType Values</t> </li> </ul> <!-- [rfced] We see that the following TLS registries have been added to <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters>, but there are no comments for the entries. Please review. TLS SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels [draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile-05][RFC9847] TLS RRC Message Types [draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc-20] While any updates would be needed for draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile and draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc, it would help us understand whether comments or Notes are expected for these registries. --> <!-- RPC note: As noted in the document, these registries are untouched by this document: TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs TLS Exporter Labels --> <t>Any TLS registry created after this document is approved for publication should indicate whether the actions defined here are applicable.</t> </section> </middle> <back> <displayreference target="RFC5246" to="TLS12"/> <displayreference target="RFC9846" to="TLS13"/> <displayreference target="RFC9847" to="TLS13REG"/> <references anchor="sec-combined-references"> <name>References</name> <references anchor="sec-normative-references"> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5246.xml"/> <!-- [RFC9846 / TLS13] draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-14 --> <referenceanchor="TLS12"> <front> <title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2</title> <author fullname="T. Dierks" initials="T." surname="Dierks"/> <author fullname="E. Rescorla" initials="E." surname="Rescorla"/> <date month="August" year="2008"/> <abstract> <t>This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5246"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5246"/> </reference> <reference anchor="TLS13">anchor="RFC9846" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9846"> <front> <title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3</title> <authorfullname="Eric Rescorla"initials="E."surname="Rescorla">surname="Rescorla" fullname="Eric Rescorla"> <organization>Independent</organization> </author> <dateday="17" month="February" year="2025"/> <abstract> <t> 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. </t> </abstract>month='January' year='2026'/> </front> <seriesInfoname="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12"/> </reference> <reference anchor="TLS13REG"> <front> <title>IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS</title> <author fullname="Joseph A. Salowey" initials="J. A." surname="Salowey"> <organization>Venafi</organization> </author> <author fullname="Sean Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner"> <organization>sn3rd</organization> </author> <date day="11" month="March" year="2025"/> <abstract> <t> This document updates the changes to TLS and DTLS IANA registries made in RFC 8447. It adds a new value "D" for discouraged to the Recommended column of the selected TLS registries and adds a "Comments" column to all active registries. This document updates the following RFCs: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5705, 5878, 6520, 7301, and 8447. </t> </abstract> </front>name="RFC" value="9846"/> <seriesInfoname="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11"/>name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9846"/> </reference> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9847.xml"/> </references> <references anchor="sec-informative-references"> <name>Informative References</name> <!-- FIPS 203 Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard --> <reference anchor="ML-KEM" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/203/final"> <front> <title>Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard</title> <author><organization/><organization abbrev="NIST">National Institute of Standards and Technology</organization> </author> <dateyear="2024" month="August"/>month="August" year="2024"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="NIST FIPS" value="203"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.6028/NIST.FIPS.203"/> </reference> <reference anchor="ML-DSA" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/204/final"> <front> <title>Module-Lattice-BasedKeyDigital Signature Standard</title> <author><organization/><organization abbrev="NIST">National Institute of Standards and Technology</organization> </author> <dateyear="2024" month="August"/>month="August" year="2024"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="NIST FIPS" value="204"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.6028/NIST.FIPS.204"/> </reference> <reference anchor="SLH-DSA" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/205/final"> <front> <title>Stateless Hash-BasedKey-DigitalDigital Signature Standard</title> <author><organization/><organization abbrev="NIST">National Institute of Standards and Technology</organization> </author> <dateyear="2024" month="August"/>month="August" year="2024"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="NIST FIPS" value="205"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.6028/NIST.FIPS.205"/> </reference> <reference anchor="PQC" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography"> <front> <title>Post-QuantumCryptography</title>Cryptography (PQC)</title> <author><organization/><organization>NIST</organization> </author> <date year="2017" month="January"/> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="CFRGSLIDES" target="https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-cfrg-4.pdf"> <front> <title>Post Quantum Secure Cryptography Discussion</title> <author initials="D." surname="McGrew" fullname="David McGrew"> <organization/> </author><date>n.d.</date><date month="April" year="2016"/> </front> <refcontent>IETF 95 Proceedings</refcontent> </reference> <reference anchor="PQUIPWG" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pquip/about/"> <front> <title>Post-Quantum Use in Protocols</title> <author><organization/><organization>IETF</organization> </author><date>n.d.</date></front> </reference> <reference anchor="TLSWG" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/about/"> <front> <title>Transport Layer Security</title> <author><organization/><organization>IETF</organization> </author><date>n.d.</date></front> </reference> <reference anchor="ETSI" target="https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/103600_103699/103619/01.01.01_60/tr_103619v010101p.pdf"> <front> <title>CYBER; Migration strategies and recommendations to Quantum Safe schemes</title> <author><organization/><organization abbrev="ETSI">European Telecommunications Standards Institute</organization> </author><date>n.d.</date><date month="July" year="2020"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="ETSI TR" value="103 619"/> <refcontent>Version 1.1.1</refcontent> </reference> </references> </references><?line 186?><section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments"> <name>Acknowledgments</name> <t>We gratefully acknowledgeAmanda Baber, David Dong,<contact fullname="Amanda Baber"/>, <contact fullname="David Dong"/>, andSabrina Tanamal<contact fullname="Sabrina Tanamal"/> of IANA for their help in revising and clarifying <xref target="iana"/>.</t> </section></back><!--##markdown-source: H4sIADqb7mcAA7VZa28bNxb9zl9xoX6xAY1kO066cbFAFct2tLEN13I32E8B NUNJrDmPkhzLiuD/vueSM9LYdbZNgW0aSOLwcR/nnns4SZJEeO2NOqHe3eWU DgdHpB3pgs6V9LVVdG6V+qp6Qs5mVj1gmjcOs5K5Lb+qoidS6dWitOsTcj4T IivTQubYLrNy7hOt/DzBCv572C5KDNY4L1w9y7Vzuiz8usKSydnduSjqfKbs icgw50SkZeFU4Wp3Qt7WSsCAN0JaJWHIVKW11X7dE6vS3i9sWVfshZWFq0rr 6VKulaXdrHu1xsTsRFBC8JU/5tFJJx5UUeM4oj/fhiha2/uMU3WxoAtewuO5 1CYG6Gf2e1DaBQ8vtF/Ws/hgtRh2I9ETQtZ+WcLfBDPntTExerc6XdJUmq8Y xTay0F+lR6BOaHQvcQ7dqXRZlKZcaFhPpOLZ1mHJzzJMGaRl/mLXa53bMqPR g7Yy360qwvBAhuGfFzwYFouitDmOfQiRQcgOj2DZ+enbo+N3zcAbZC0ZD14k 287Tfxwfv5tp1067Pbv4HzN/5JlCF/PueVeXyaezK/6GiEu7UP6Elt5X7mQ4 TJ1NB4V2frAoH4ZVPXPDua7c8OjgDb4U0sRVDbCvyqw2KrmU3utUJR+kUxl9 UuvkrEhl5WoTQktXCCkC7XKaellk0ma9sE1AIvVG9aJ2ng7f9Ono4Oi4F00c T0ffa+Lxd5hIYw34SENTvShiQf5V46aXH/+OdW9fsQ5HemWUc/RRumUngH/f uptfTv+SZbb8TaXeDavS+eT3Wha+zpPUritfLqysluvOOf+SRS3tmg85/LHr wA0v/iUuptPni0/Pby+ml5Px2fR1e1ar1aCtZjYnVSpD1bvh+7dDZ3SmXPOR vH+bpHO7SI4HVTZ/eTy1xwciUc+sQJJdWgciDMtaSqDwny5AfuMBXaUXVq2a wVjPY5Rstntw88uvk5vPF6/7gRBJb2V6r+zOH9BR9Xutq6GclbUffjNmvzrF PeHGlr5MS9OU9fcehYJ/5aBvMS3mnN1NJ9/OivJOh60zZcAZdsgDX7wdHh68 eXdw8IU/3r8Pvw7fDw8OB+H/L+8Oht5+iaMPB4f8p3qZsdP/fDi7/YmuNBIU uMHBH/Q5kC0B32QV+DFXQDo/deTLXX7lXJFLlyoHMYskSUjOeHXqheAwlnOK jRbFsFoyzdNcP2JfV+aK7otyVVCm5jrVqkj5PMS96cx9bs1oUCvgbyDulviF dlvDDk+uUqme83y/lJ4QZAdQ4jRRI3I8oQlrc9qexGLllc11oWi2Dmd8vqBt w93vU6FWYfjskdOD1FzKmTKuj47Ez8SoqoxOQwiSmLsWIHQNTeB1jN3e6PLm en/3bDJ2fbQWYrZdwJSVNoZmimSF8noAs6ANtC43blbo0anVVdgvK7GoKD1V ynqJ8CD6Y56/h++yWMcfAAQX1P5PpLczOVGCH5aFWQ9idnKdZUYJ8QNNCo82 WKfhkM0PCFgCoeEQkKeXqaPNJrS1p6dOSvoBGtqLGOGcq/6VfK4gB1r3mn2O np4G4uxR5hVIlo/xyyDCUlNnSmAdkwVLjby0Kj5X0ENyjm2Bm5hyuKljXGB1 JmcmpLUBgg24FVbl5UPcCMZ1aBT7VFbnmpsvb7IKQOCFyMdKyfsBTXJGAUBu wLCsnzgOqvitXDuy5YwJfosxJLKcO0T4Qwlnm1Q4WsoH1IbCb/QM9egBNI51 VerCO5zgVe7I6HsVoPfMPCENVCZCl7sITFdXAZVZlGxANKsHZc2aesyOGcEW ONMDkEn5dNCnVBbAmZBZxk5hLwQn5KbgkMiwbdWgdED///piuHAm1WOqqkgk Bo0PxgHIm42WhXx6+o5SeaVWOsCnLfBpBLap02WfMfNKNQkuoD69Uk2DUCf5 tuxdMOCb7ZX20Ob3hTjtZlIapMhCTjxgATUtHXHJqxrhYnYpUnj4ABXKIEaY gHkGBZbBtgXQDQgSyxFVxErQYE4OpprPuY8UaNGIDVzGlUXei9vpqE+cZa8S pNBkySwomLFGAankozImBzT2zs/HH/cDu50ZwwFM6ZQx9MKns9PT/Ya62TSk 3SquCqpdTB0CNhCTgmXIu36w8NcpXYeAAfeTwqHLwFcu5FYuxbayFfU45Xoy vdtH35EB41LktfE6WStpWzfhn2uW668IwLZAIkRbrPQcOlJPhKj+IdrBA9yC nGa+2GyQL3ARnWuLcs62soTJSLAjfEXj1XldMNaXAKIqVIYrWVk3aHYovpiS zWYnrpjhYkyOjol9CxAIaXDbGDCYNpso/IH8+B0alr9zfDabRtTyblcMTtAL 2k6Kw71tm3P3vhQdhL5FYS25yjFfW/CVzHJI/76IJNs8oRjkok3VzrLunkGW sHH8Gfz6vNSIHm+giwxEaNe0Qv2vpA6szW4Fl5ExhqFbdhIXtgwoESG4S8k8 me1oMiTbEcKr7EqibY1o1dw8A/OFowL3BfABIIAiwvyGj+OZKCiGJsPtTyqV 1wcjqq3QY0gEVcmOThubYtSfWeH6tAslM0bobLysz/f17WRI3IZK0512aric luuZhaDtIDl01AzlxdzL5MCxZGcykC2TtvAsH3XIC+7UgLaRgGzK20rq3hrY BJMxCkOj1G0745ngPxWrhpM4B+mHNtzGnnuFjlwTaLx78RfYCwRuaofWadZb hQA7+TWHHYgbdJmZqWPjRJjZB9EKgFClTL+o1LbHZLTnlNp2gH2CXQz2Lc/h R4musoqYFnAgU5Up12F3h7ZmwIWP2C04h51hXJMWmBZIvFXZdNr0+ZiNpodw wJG0bffDUBDu2y4X65GbEF99nsc5Zaqx2Ety/gjtVjf1FOUU21RXwB36Z9OW Wqsmo+vRC4ugxEIYhLiOcy1kuIvV3qiw2zPALBT6TLGfqSmZV9B0fbeHD8St ZOD2nw9DC2VtZ+cCxt5RAwZoBovaRs2qZ6wcLrvYHqpYMTgwiZs6cAiIrAKG 1lWoNtWQUtQdFHUHpqtHOMCJ27nSNu+tUdu2rBtVqgIEWKIY1mmOq5ptavbo tGOlQ3lCmkQwGxPkKflV2QneCeRviOffV/HNBi+uB0KMTEsRL/LVQDPIwJCD a667bVywJIdZJzQqYh1xANfxuZBzPiL2oOlFq4Bc5PZoPsd8c/dxMuWXVE/x PSY0ZvZMJ3FlilCZEcO5vA+RJoewGnRXq3AjhlDmLGDPcejmU8ilbT67biC1 zXsrw+TfWCKCiO2dPzs18kGPApMAJsG7flBiJAP6RO80XCt9D5Aydc56a+R3 Ggf+ddyN0oIVIz94NeBct66BQCfjhoHb/ggvG9rWNsbVnc7Da7h2wqnEZTab tC/nyuKO4f1vaWq1nYL9IqNDK0FaQIEGYT9qibyDlu5cfq8EpuUNX3v8bFxX 7N+0hojbjhncqXxnRbBssmsX7bySYeD5aQvZ00bZdY/A4A3fRF74f9beU/7o 90cAyC0BoM7W/IZs63c7hqbsZ9CtdIXIyMXzcztPy2w7+ml8/oorN+7+k1qf PcYLAc9vHmzfwL08e/tgGt5JtKPouCZgHLjtJp32uo/4CZu631kWL12h97VW 4XJsr1CRYJlukERbxw0i17jSwU2Ws00xdxmPsdq91nSQLpqKawoMnW+pAty5 AGRD1uEih7UYV6EZyEhsELbNVX8m03vuMqOUr+VGZQs+GBrnJP6jg8r+2ZtL 41QP3eazIn75o/jtOThou0TRKGftRh/AduCQ+A5uXLb3/6mEhikk3aFpgRQE SjP0EHYpis+lMhWTgFUPOvRlXgbZYvV8zT/bvj8Q/wWdevXPnhkAAA==[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. --> </back> </rfc>