5Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Moriarty
6Request for Comments: 8996 CIS
8Obsoletes: 5469, 7507 Trinity College Dublin
9Updates: 3261, 3329, 3436, 3470, 3501, 3552, March 2021
10 3568, 3656, 3749, 3767, 3856, 3871,
11 3887, 3903, 3943, 3983, 4097, 4111,
12 4162, 4168, 4217, 4235, 4261, 4279,
13 4497, 4513, 4531, 4540, 4582, 4616,
14 4642, 4680, 4681, 4712, 4732, 4743,
15 4744, 4785, 4791, 4823, 4851, 4964,
16 4975, 4976, 4992, 5018, 5019, 5023,
17 5024, 5049, 5054, 5091, 5158, 5216,
18 5238, 5263, 5281, 5364, 5415, 5422,
19 5456, 5734, 5878, 5953, 6012, 6042,
20 6083, 6084, 6176, 6347, 6353, 6367,
21 6460, 6614, 6739, 6749, 6750, 7030,
22 7465, 7525, 7562, 7568, 8261, 8422
23Category: Best Current Practice
27 Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1
32 versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346). Accordingly, those
33 documents have been moved to Historic status. These versions lack
34 support for current and recommended cryptographic algorithms and
35 mechanisms, and various government and industry profiles of
36 applications using TLS now mandate avoiding these old TLS versions.
37 TLS version 1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in
38 2008 (subsequently being obsoleted by TLS version 1.3 in 2018),
39 providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions.
40 Removing support for older versions from implementations reduces the
41 attack surface, reduces opportunity for misconfiguration, and
42 streamlines library and product maintenance.
44 This document also deprecates Datagram TLS (DTLS) version 1.0 (RFC
45 4347) but not DTLS version 1.2, and there is no DTLS version 1.1.
47 This document updates many RFCs that normatively refer to TLS version
48 1.0 or TLS version 1.1, as described herein. This document also
49 updates the best practices for TLS usage in RFC 7525; hence, it is
54 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
56 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
57 (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
58 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
59 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
60 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
62 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
63 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
64 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996.
68 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
69 document authors. All rights reserved.
71 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
72 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
73 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
74 publication of this document. Please review these documents
75 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
76 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
77 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
78 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
79 described in the Simplified BSD License.
86 2. Support for Deprecation
87 3. SHA-1 Usage Problematic in TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1
90 6. Updates to RFC 7525
91 7. Operational Considerations
92 8. Security Considerations
93 9. IANA Considerations
95 10.1. Normative References
96 10.2. Informative References
102 Transport Layer Security (TLS) versions 1.0 [RFC2246] and 1.1
103 [RFC4346] were superseded by TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] in 2008, which has now
104 itself been superseded by TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]. Datagram Transport
105 Layer Security (DTLS) version 1.0 [RFC4347] was superseded by DTLS
106 1.2 [RFC6347] in 2012. Therefore, it is timely to further deprecate
107 TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and DTLS 1.0. Accordingly, the aforementioned
108 documents have been moved to Historic status.
110 Technical reasons for deprecating these versions include:
112 * They require the implementation of older cipher suites that are no
113 longer desirable for cryptographic reasons, e.g., TLS 1.0 makes
114 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA mandatory to implement.
115 * There is a lack of support for current recommended cipher suites,
116 especially authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD)
117 ciphers, which were not supported prior to TLS 1.2. Note that
118 registry entries for no-longer-desirable ciphersuites remain in
119 the registries, but many TLS registries were updated by [RFC8447],
120 which indicates that such entries are not recommended by the IETF.
121 * The integrity of the handshake depends on SHA-1 hash.
122 * The authentication of the peers depends on SHA-1 signatures.
123 * Support for four TLS protocol versions increases the likelihood of
125 * At least one widely used library has plans to drop TLS 1.1 and TLS
126 1.0 support in upcoming releases; products using such libraries
127 would need to use older versions of the libraries to support TLS
128 1.0 and TLS 1.1, which is clearly undesirable.
130 Deprecation of these versions is intended to assist developers as
131 additional justification to no longer support older (D)TLS versions
132 and to migrate to a minimum of (D)TLS 1.2. Deprecation also assists
133 product teams with phasing out support for the older versions, to
134 reduce the attack surface and the scope of maintenance for protocols
139 This document updates the following RFCs that normatively reference
140 TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, or DTLS 1.0. The update is to obsolete usage of
141 these older versions. Fallback to these versions is prohibited
142 through this update. Specific references to mandatory minimum
143 protocol versions of TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 are replaced by TLS 1.2, and
144 references to minimum protocol version DTLS 1.0 are replaced by DTLS
145 1.2. Statements that "TLS 1.0 is the most widely deployed version
146 and will provide the broadest interoperability" are removed without
149 [RFC3261] [RFC3329] [RFC3436] [RFC3470] [RFC3501] [RFC3552] [RFC3568]
150 [RFC3656] [RFC3749] [RFC3767] [RFC3856] [RFC3871] [RFC3887] [RFC3903]
151 [RFC3943] [RFC3983] [RFC4097] [RFC4111] [RFC4162] [RFC4168] [RFC4217]
152 [RFC4235] [RFC4261] [RFC4279] [RFC4497] [RFC4513] [RFC4531] [RFC4540]
153 [RFC4582] [RFC4616] [RFC4642] [RFC4680] [RFC4681] [RFC4712] [RFC4732]
154 [RFC4785] [RFC4791] [RFC4823] [RFC4851] [RFC4964] [RFC4975] [RFC4976]
155 [RFC4992] [RFC5018] [RFC5019] [RFC5023] [RFC5024] [RFC5049] [RFC5054]
156 [RFC5091] [RFC5158] [RFC5216] [RFC5238] [RFC5263] [RFC5281] [RFC5364]
157 [RFC5415] [RFC5422] [RFC5456] [RFC5734] [RFC5878] [RFC6012] [RFC6042]
158 [RFC6083] [RFC6084] [RFC6176] [RFC6353] [RFC6367] [RFC6739] [RFC6749]
159 [RFC6750] [RFC7030] [RFC7465] [RFC7525] [RFC7562] [RFC7568] [RFC8261]
162 The status of [RFC7562], [RFC6042], [RFC5456], [RFC5024], [RFC4540],
163 and [RFC3656] will be updated with permission of the Independent
166 In addition, these RFCs normatively refer to TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 and
167 have already been obsoleted; they are still listed here and marked as
168 updated by this document in order to reiterate that any usage of the
169 obsolete protocol should use modern TLS: [RFC3316], [RFC3489],
170 [RFC3546], [RFC3588], [RFC3734], [RFC3920], [RFC4132], [RFC4244],
171 [RFC4347], [RFC4366], [RFC4492], [RFC4507], [RFC4572], [RFC4582],
172 [RFC4934], [RFC5077], [RFC5081], [RFC5101], and [RFC5953].
174 Note that [RFC4642] has already been updated by [RFC8143], which
175 makes an overlapping, but not quite identical, update as this
178 [RFC6614] has a requirement for TLS 1.1 or later, although it only
179 makes an informative reference to [RFC4346]. This requirement is
180 updated to be for TLS 1.2 or later.
182 [RFC6460], [RFC4744], and [RFC4743] are already Historic; they are
183 still listed here and marked as updated by this document in order to
184 reiterate that any usage of the obsolete protocol should use modern
187 This document updates DTLS [RFC6347]. [RFC6347] had allowed for
188 negotiating the use of DTLS 1.0, which is now forbidden.
190 The DES and International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA) cipher
191 suites specified in [RFC5469] were specifically removed from TLS 1.2
192 by [RFC5246]; since the only versions of TLS for which their usage is
193 defined are now Historic, [RFC5469] has been moved to Historic as
196 The version-fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value specified in
197 [RFC7507] was defined to detect when a given client and server
198 negotiate a lower version of (D)TLS than their highest shared
199 version. TLS 1.3 ([RFC8446]) incorporates a different mechanism that
200 achieves this purpose, via sentinel values in the ServerHello.Random
201 field. With (D)TLS versions prior to 1.2 fully deprecated, the only
202 way for (D)TLS implementations to negotiate a lower version than
203 their highest shared version would be to negotiate (D)TLS 1.2 while
204 supporting (D)TLS 1.3; supporting (D)TLS 1.3 implies support for the
205 ServerHello.Random mechanism. Accordingly, the functionality from
206 [RFC7507] has been superseded, and this document marks it as
211 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
212 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
213 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
214 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
215 capitals, as shown here.
2172. Support for Deprecation
219 Specific details on attacks against TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1, as well as
220 their mitigations, are provided in [NIST800-52r2], [RFC7457], and
221 other RFCs referenced therein. Although mitigations for the current
222 known vulnerabilities have been developed, any future issues
223 discovered in old protocol versions might not be mitigated in older
224 library versions when newer library versions do not support those old
227 For example, NIST has provided the following rationale, copied with
228 permission from Section 1.1, "History of TLS", of [NIST800-52r2]:
230 | TLS 1.1, specified in RFC 4346 [24], was developed to address
231 | weaknesses discovered in TLS 1.0, primarily in the areas of
232 | initialization vector selection and padding error processing.
233 | Initialization vectors were made explicit to prevent a certain
234 | class of attacks on the Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode of
235 | operation used by TLS. The handling of padding errors was altered
236 | to treat a padding error as a bad message authentication code
237 | rather than a decryption failure. In addition, the TLS 1.1 RFC
238 | acknowledges attacks on CBC mode that rely on the time to compute
239 | the message authentication code (MAC). The TLS 1.1 specification
240 | states that to defend against such attacks, an implementation must
241 | process records in the same manner regardless of whether padding
242 | errors exist. Further implementation considerations for CBC modes
243 | (which were not included in RFC 4346 [24]) are discussed in
246 | TLS 1.2, specified in RFC 5246 [25], made several cryptographic
247 | enhancements, particularly in the area of hash functions, with the
248 | ability to use or specify the SHA-2 family of algorithms for hash,
249 | MAC, and Pseudorandom Function (PRF) computations. TLS 1.2 also
250 | adds authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD) cipher
253 | TLS 1.3, specified in RFC 8446 [57], represents a significant
254 | change to TLS that aims to address threats that have arisen over
255 | the years. Among the changes are a new handshake protocol, a new
256 | key derivation process that uses the HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
257 | Key Derivation Function (HKDF) [37], and the removal of cipher
258 | suites that use RSA key transport or static Diffie-Hellman ( DH)
259 | [sic] key exchanges, the CBC mode of operation, or SHA-1. Many
260 | extensions defined for use with TLS 1.2 and previous versions
261 | cannot be used with TLS 1.3.
2633. SHA-1 Usage Problematic in TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1
265 The integrity of both TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 depends on a running SHA-1
266 hash of the exchanged messages. This makes it possible to perform a
267 downgrade attack on the handshake by an attacker able to perform 2^77
268 operations, well below the acceptable modern security margin.
270 Similarly, the authentication of the handshake depends on signatures
271 made using a SHA-1 hash or a concatenation of MD5 and SHA-1 hashes
272 that is not appreciably stronger than a SHA-1 hash, allowing the
273 attacker to impersonate a server when it is able to break the
274 severely weakened SHA-1 hash.
276 Neither TLS 1.0 nor TLS 1.1 allows the peers to select a stronger
277 hash for signatures in the ServerKeyExchange or CertificateVerify
278 messages, making the only upgrade path the use of a newer protocol
281 See [Bhargavan2016] for additional details.
285 TLS 1.0 MUST NOT be used. Negotiation of TLS 1.0 from any version of
286 TLS MUST NOT be permitted.
288 Any other version of TLS is more secure than TLS 1.0. While TLS 1.0
289 can be configured to prevent some types of interception, using the
290 highest version available is preferred.
292 Pragmatically, clients MUST NOT send a ClientHello with
293 ClientHello.client_version set to {03,01}. Similarly, servers MUST
294 NOT send a ServerHello with ServerHello.server_version set to
295 {03,01}. Any party receiving a Hello message with the protocol
296 version set to {03,01} MUST respond with a "protocol_version" alert
297 message and close the connection.
299 Historically, TLS specifications were not clear on what the record
300 layer version number (TLSPlaintext.version) could contain when
301 sending a ClientHello message. Appendix E of [RFC5246] notes that
302 TLSPlaintext.version could be selected to maximize interoperability,
303 though no definitive value is identified as ideal. That guidance is
304 still applicable; therefore, TLS servers MUST accept any value
305 {03,XX} (including {03,00}) as the record layer version number for
306 ClientHello, but they MUST NOT negotiate TLS 1.0.
310 TLS 1.1 MUST NOT be used. Negotiation of TLS 1.1 from any version of
311 TLS MUST NOT be permitted.
313 Pragmatically, clients MUST NOT send a ClientHello with
314 ClientHello.client_version set to {03,02}. Similarly, servers MUST
315 NOT send a ServerHello with ServerHello.server_version set to
316 {03,02}. Any party receiving a Hello message with the protocol
317 version set to {03,02} MUST respond with a "protocol_version" alert
318 message and close the connection.
320 Any newer version of TLS is more secure than TLS 1.1. While TLS 1.1
321 can be configured to prevent some types of interception, using the
322 highest version available is preferred. Support for TLS 1.1 is
323 dwindling in libraries and will impact security going forward if
324 mitigations for attacks cannot be easily addressed and supported in
327 Historically, TLS specifications were not clear on what the record
328 layer version number (TLSPlaintext.version) could contain when
329 sending a ClientHello message. Appendix E of [RFC5246] notes that
330 TLSPlaintext.version could be selected to maximize interoperability,
331 though no definitive value is identified as ideal. That guidance is
332 still applicable; therefore, TLS servers MUST accept any value
333 {03,XX} (including {03,00}) as the record layer version number for
334 ClientHello, but they MUST NOT negotiate TLS 1.1.
3366. Updates to RFC 7525
338 "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
339 Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)" [RFC7525] is BCP 195, which
340 is the most recent Best Current Practice for implementing TLS and was
341 based on TLS 1.2. At the time of publication, TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1
342 had not yet been deprecated. As such, BCP 195 is called out
343 specifically to update text implementing the deprecation
344 recommendations of this document.
346 This document updates Section 3.1.1 of [RFC7525] by changing SHOULD
347 NOT to MUST NOT as follows:
349 * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate TLS version 1.0 [RFC2246].
351 Rationale: TLS 1.0 (published in 1999) does not support many
352 modern, strong cipher suites. In addition, TLS 1.0 lacks a per-
353 record Initialization Vector (IV) for CBC-based cipher suites and
354 does not warn against common padding errors.
356 * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate TLS version 1.1 [RFC4346].
358 Rationale: TLS 1.1 (published in 2006) is a security improvement
359 over TLS 1.0 but still does not support certain stronger cipher
362 This document updates Section 3.1.2 of [RFC7525] by changing SHOULD
363 NOT to MUST NOT and adding a reference to RFC 6347 as follows:
365 * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate DTLS version 1.0 [RFC4347]
368 Version 1.0 of DTLS correlates to version 1.1 of TLS (see above).
3707. Operational Considerations
372 This document is part of BCP 195 and, as such, reflects the
373 understanding of the IETF (at the time of this document's
374 publication) as to the best practices for TLS and DTLS usage.
376 Though TLS 1.1 has been obsolete since the publication of [RFC5246]
377 in 2008, and DTLS 1.0 has been obsolete since the publication of
378 [RFC6347] in 2012, there may remain some systems in operation that do
379 not support (D)TLS 1.2 or higher. Adopting the practices recommended
380 by this document for any systems that need to communicate with the
381 aforementioned class of systems will cause failure to interoperate.
382 However, disregarding the recommendations of this document in order
383 to continue to interoperate with the aforementioned class of systems
384 incurs some amount of risk. The nature of the risks incurred by
385 operating in contravention to the recommendations of this document
386 are discussed in Sections 2 and 3, and knowledge of those risks
387 should be used along with any potential mitigating factors and the
388 risks inherent to updating the systems in question when deciding how
389 quickly to adopt the recommendations specified in this document.
3918. Security Considerations
393 This document deprecates two older TLS protocol versions and one
394 older DTLS protocol version for security reasons already described.
395 The attack surface is reduced when there are a smaller number of
396 supported protocols and fallback options are removed.
3989. IANA Considerations
400 This document has no IANA actions.
40410.1. Normative References
406 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
407 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
408 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
409 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
411 [RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
412 RFC 2246, DOI 10.17487/RFC2246, January 1999,
413 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2246>.
415 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
416 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
417 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
418 DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
419 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
421 [RFC3329] Arkko, J., Torvinen, V., Camarillo, G., Niemi, A., and T.
422 Haukka, "Security Mechanism Agreement for the Session
423 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3329,
424 DOI 10.17487/RFC3329, January 2003,
425 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3329>.
427 [RFC3436] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport
428 Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
429 RFC 3436, DOI 10.17487/RFC3436, December 2002,
430 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3436>.
432 [RFC3470] Hollenbeck, S., Rose, M., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines for
433 the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF
434 Protocols", BCP 70, RFC 3470, DOI 10.17487/RFC3470,
435 January 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3470>.
437 [RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
438 4rev1", RFC 3501, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003,
439 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.
441 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
442 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
443 DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
444 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
446 [RFC3568] Barbir, A., Cain, B., Nair, R., and O. Spatscheck, "Known
447 Content Network (CN) Request-Routing Mechanisms",
448 RFC 3568, DOI 10.17487/RFC3568, July 2003,
449 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3568>.
451 [RFC3656] Siemborski, R., "The Mailbox Update (MUPDATE) Distributed
452 Mailbox Database Protocol", RFC 3656,
453 DOI 10.17487/RFC3656, December 2003,
454 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3656>.
456 [RFC3749] Hollenbeck, S., "Transport Layer Security Protocol
457 Compression Methods", RFC 3749, DOI 10.17487/RFC3749, May
458 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3749>.
460 [RFC3767] Farrell, S., Ed., "Securely Available Credentials
461 Protocol", RFC 3767, DOI 10.17487/RFC3767, June 2004,
462 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3767>.
464 [RFC3856] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
465 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856,
466 DOI 10.17487/RFC3856, August 2004,
467 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3856>.
469 [RFC3871] Jones, G., Ed., "Operational Security Requirements for
470 Large Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network
471 Infrastructure", RFC 3871, DOI 10.17487/RFC3871, September
472 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3871>.
474 [RFC3887] Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC 3887,
475 DOI 10.17487/RFC3887, September 2004,
476 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3887>.
478 [RFC3903] Niemi, A., Ed., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
479 Extension for Event State Publication", RFC 3903,
480 DOI 10.17487/RFC3903, October 2004,
481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3903>.
483 [RFC3943] Friend, R., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
484 Compression Using Lempel-Ziv-Stac (LZS)", RFC 3943,
485 DOI 10.17487/RFC3943, November 2004,
486 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3943>.
488 [RFC3983] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry
489 Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible
490 Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3983, DOI 10.17487/RFC3983,
491 January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3983>.
493 [RFC4097] Barnes, M., Ed., "Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM)
494 Protocol Evaluation", RFC 4097, DOI 10.17487/RFC4097, June
495 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4097>.
497 [RFC4111] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for Provider-
498 Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)", RFC 4111,
499 DOI 10.17487/RFC4111, July 2005,
500 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4111>.
502 [RFC4162] Lee, H.J., Yoon, J.H., and J.I. Lee, "Addition of SEED
503 Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
504 RFC 4162, DOI 10.17487/RFC4162, August 2005,
505 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4162>.
507 [RFC4168] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G. Camarillo, "The
508 Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as a Transport
509 for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4168,
510 DOI 10.17487/RFC4168, October 2005,
511 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4168>.
513 [RFC4217] Ford-Hutchinson, P., "Securing FTP with TLS", RFC 4217,
514 DOI 10.17487/RFC4217, October 2005,
515 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4217>.
517 [RFC4235] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and R. Mahy, Ed., "An
518 INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session
519 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4235,
520 DOI 10.17487/RFC4235, November 2005,
521 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4235>.
523 [RFC4261] Walker, J. and A. Kulkarni, Ed., "Common Open Policy
524 Service (COPS) Over Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
525 RFC 4261, DOI 10.17487/RFC4261, December 2005,
526 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4261>.
528 [RFC4279] Eronen, P., Ed. and H. Tschofenig, Ed., "Pre-Shared Key
529 Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
530 RFC 4279, DOI 10.17487/RFC4279, December 2005,
531 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4279>.
533 [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
534 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346,
535 DOI 10.17487/RFC4346, April 2006,
536 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4346>.
538 [RFC4497] Elwell, J., Derks, F., Mourot, P., and O. Rousseau,
539 "Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol
540 (SIP) and QSIG", BCP 117, RFC 4497, DOI 10.17487/RFC4497,
541 May 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4497>.
543 [RFC4513] Harrison, R., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
544 (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms",
545 RFC 4513, DOI 10.17487/RFC4513, June 2006,
546 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4513>.
548 [RFC4531] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
549 (LDAP) Turn Operation", RFC 4531, DOI 10.17487/RFC4531,
550 June 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4531>.
552 [RFC4540] Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and C. Cadar, "NEC's Simple
553 Middlebox Configuration (SIMCO) Protocol Version 3.0",
554 RFC 4540, DOI 10.17487/RFC4540, May 2006,
555 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4540>.
557 [RFC4582] Camarillo, G., Ott, J., and K. Drage, "The Binary Floor
558 Control Protocol (BFCP)", RFC 4582, DOI 10.17487/RFC4582,
559 November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4582>.
561 [RFC4616] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "The PLAIN Simple Authentication and
562 Security Layer (SASL) Mechanism", RFC 4616,
563 DOI 10.17487/RFC4616, August 2006,
564 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4616>.
566 [RFC4642] Murchison, K., Vinocur, J., and C. Newman, "Using
567 Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Network News Transfer
568 Protocol (NNTP)", RFC 4642, DOI 10.17487/RFC4642, October
569 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4642>.
571 [RFC4680] Santesson, S., "TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental
572 Data", RFC 4680, DOI 10.17487/RFC4680, October 2006,
573 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4680>.
575 [RFC4681] Santesson, S., Medvinsky, A., and J. Ball, "TLS User
576 Mapping Extension", RFC 4681, DOI 10.17487/RFC4681,
577 October 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4681>.
579 [RFC4712] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., Golovinsky, E., Rahman, M.,
580 and Y. Kim, "Transport Mappings for Real-time Application
581 Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON) Protocol Data Unit
582 (PDU)", RFC 4712, DOI 10.17487/RFC4712, October 2006,
583 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4712>.
585 [RFC4732] Handley, M., Ed., Rescorla, E., Ed., and IAB, "Internet
586 Denial-of-Service Considerations", RFC 4732,
587 DOI 10.17487/RFC4732, December 2006,
588 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4732>.
590 [RFC4743] Goddard, T., "Using NETCONF over the Simple Object Access
591 Protocol (SOAP)", RFC 4743, DOI 10.17487/RFC4743, December
592 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4743>.
594 [RFC4744] Lear, E. and K. Crozier, "Using the NETCONF Protocol over
595 the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4744,
596 DOI 10.17487/RFC4744, December 2006,
597 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4744>.
599 [RFC4785] Blumenthal, U. and P. Goel, "Pre-Shared Key (PSK)
600 Ciphersuites with NULL Encryption for Transport Layer
601 Security (TLS)", RFC 4785, DOI 10.17487/RFC4785, January
602 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4785>.
604 [RFC4791] Daboo, C., Desruisseaux, B., and L. Dusseault,
605 "Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV)", RFC 4791,
606 DOI 10.17487/RFC4791, March 2007,
607 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4791>.
609 [RFC4823] Harding, T. and R. Scott, "FTP Transport for Secure Peer-
610 to-Peer Business Data Interchange over the Internet",
611 RFC 4823, DOI 10.17487/RFC4823, April 2007,
612 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4823>.
614 [RFC4851] Cam-Winget, N., McGrew, D., Salowey, J., and H. Zhou, "The
615 Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible
616 Authentication Protocol Method (EAP-FAST)", RFC 4851,
617 DOI 10.17487/RFC4851, May 2007,
618 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4851>.
620 [RFC4964] Allen, A., Ed., Holm, J., and T. Hallin, "The P-Answer-
621 State Header Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol
622 for the Open Mobile Alliance Push to Talk over Cellular",
623 RFC 4964, DOI 10.17487/RFC4964, September 2007,
624 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4964>.
626 [RFC4975] Campbell, B., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and C. Jennings, Ed.,
627 "The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975,
628 DOI 10.17487/RFC4975, September 2007,
629 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4975>.
631 [RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. B. Roach, "Relay Extensions
632 for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
633 DOI 10.17487/RFC4976, September 2007,
634 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4976>.
636 [RFC4992] Newton, A., "XML Pipelining with Chunks for the Internet
637 Registry Information Service", RFC 4992,
638 DOI 10.17487/RFC4992, August 2007,
639 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4992>.
641 [RFC5018] Camarillo, G., "Connection Establishment in the Binary
642 Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)", RFC 5018,
643 DOI 10.17487/RFC5018, September 2007,
644 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5018>.
646 [RFC5019] Deacon, A. and R. Hurst, "The Lightweight Online
647 Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Profile for High-Volume
648 Environments", RFC 5019, DOI 10.17487/RFC5019, September
649 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5019>.
651 [RFC5023] Gregorio, J., Ed. and B. de hOra, Ed., "The Atom
652 Publishing Protocol", RFC 5023, DOI 10.17487/RFC5023,
653 October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5023>.
655 [RFC5024] Friend, I., "ODETTE File Transfer Protocol 2.0", RFC 5024,
656 DOI 10.17487/RFC5024, November 2007,
657 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5024>.
659 [RFC5049] Bormann, C., Liu, Z., Price, R., and G. Camarillo, Ed.,
660 "Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session
661 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5049,
662 DOI 10.17487/RFC5049, December 2007,
663 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5049>.
665 [RFC5054] Taylor, D., Wu, T., Mavrogiannopoulos, N., and T. Perrin,
666 "Using the Secure Remote Password (SRP) Protocol for TLS
667 Authentication", RFC 5054, DOI 10.17487/RFC5054, November
668 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5054>.
670 [RFC5091] Boyen, X. and L. Martin, "Identity-Based Cryptography
671 Standard (IBCS) #1: Supersingular Curve Implementations of
672 the BF and BB1 Cryptosystems", RFC 5091,
673 DOI 10.17487/RFC5091, December 2007,
674 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5091>.
676 [RFC5158] Huston, G., "6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation Specification",
677 RFC 5158, DOI 10.17487/RFC5158, March 2008,
678 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5158>.
680 [RFC5216] Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
681 Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, DOI 10.17487/RFC5216,
682 March 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5216>.
684 [RFC5238] Phelan, T., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over
685 the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
686 RFC 5238, DOI 10.17487/RFC5238, May 2008,
687 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5238>.
689 [RFC5263] Lonnfors, M., Costa-Requena, J., Leppanen, E., and H.
690 Khartabil, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
691 for Partial Notification of Presence Information",
692 RFC 5263, DOI 10.17487/RFC5263, September 2008,
693 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5263>.
695 [RFC5281] Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "Extensible Authentication
696 Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated
697 Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)", RFC 5281,
698 DOI 10.17487/RFC5281, August 2008,
699 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5281>.
701 [RFC5364] Garcia-Martin, M. and G. Camarillo, "Extensible Markup
702 Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy
703 Control Attributes in Resource Lists", RFC 5364,
704 DOI 10.17487/RFC5364, October 2008,
705 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5364>.
707 [RFC5422] Cam-Winget, N., McGrew, D., Salowey, J., and H. Zhou,
708 "Dynamic Provisioning Using Flexible Authentication via
709 Secure Tunneling Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP-
710 FAST)", RFC 5422, DOI 10.17487/RFC5422, March 2009,
711 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5422>.
713 [RFC5469] Eronen, P., Ed., "DES and IDEA Cipher Suites for Transport
714 Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5469, DOI 10.17487/RFC5469,
715 February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5469>.
717 [RFC5734] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
718 Transport over TCP", STD 69, RFC 5734,
719 DOI 10.17487/RFC5734, August 2009,
720 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5734>.
722 [RFC5878] Brown, M. and R. Housley, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
723 Authorization Extensions", RFC 5878, DOI 10.17487/RFC5878,
724 May 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5878>.
726 [RFC5953] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
727 Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
728 RFC 5953, DOI 10.17487/RFC5953, August 2010,
729 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5953>.
731 [RFC6042] Keromytis, A., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
732 Authorization Using KeyNote", RFC 6042,
733 DOI 10.17487/RFC6042, October 2010,
734 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6042>.
736 [RFC6176] Turner, S. and T. Polk, "Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer
737 (SSL) Version 2.0", RFC 6176, DOI 10.17487/RFC6176, March
738 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6176>.
740 [RFC6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
741 Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
742 STD 78, RFC 6353, DOI 10.17487/RFC6353, July 2011,
743 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6353>.
745 [RFC6367] Kanno, S. and M. Kanda, "Addition of the Camellia Cipher
746 Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6367,
747 DOI 10.17487/RFC6367, September 2011,
748 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6367>.
750 [RFC6739] Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Synchronizing Service
751 Boundaries and <mapping> Elements Based on the Location-
752 to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol", RFC 6739,
753 DOI 10.17487/RFC6739, October 2012,
754 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6739>.
756 [RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
757 RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
758 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
760 [RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
761 Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
762 DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
763 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.
765 [RFC7030] Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed.,
766 "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030,
767 DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013,
768 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7030>.
770 [RFC7465] Popov, A., "Prohibiting RC4 Cipher Suites", RFC 7465,
771 DOI 10.17487/RFC7465, February 2015,
772 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7465>.
774 [RFC7507] Moeller, B. and A. Langley, "TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher
775 Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade
776 Attacks", RFC 7507, DOI 10.17487/RFC7507, April 2015,
777 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7507>.
779 [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
780 "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
781 Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
782 (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
783 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
785 [RFC7562] Thakore, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization
786 Using Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP)
787 Certificates", RFC 7562, DOI 10.17487/RFC7562, July 2015,
788 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7562>.
790 [RFC7568] Barnes, R., Thomson, M., Pironti, A., and A. Langley,
791 "Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0", RFC 7568,
792 DOI 10.17487/RFC7568, June 2015,
793 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7568>.
795 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
796 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
797 May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
799 [RFC8422] Nir, Y., Josefsson, S., and M. Pegourie-Gonnard, "Elliptic
800 Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer
801 Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier", RFC 8422,
802 DOI 10.17487/RFC8422, August 2018,
803 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8422>.
80510.2. Informative References
808 Bhargavan, K. and G. Leuren, "Transcript Collision
809 Attacks: Breaking Authentication in TLS, IKE, and SSH",
810 DOI 10.14722/ndss.2016.23418, February 2016,
811 <https://www.mitls.org/downloads/transcript-
815 National Institute of Standards and Technology,
816 "Guidelines for the Selection, Configuration, and Use of
817 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Implementations NIST
818 SP800-52r2", DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-52r2, August 2019,
819 <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
820 NIST.SP.800-52r2.pdf>.
822 [RFC3316] Arkko, J., Kuijpers, G., Soliman, H., Loughney, J., and J.
823 Wiljakka, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Some
824 Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts", RFC 3316,
825 DOI 10.17487/RFC3316, April 2003,
826 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3316>.
828 [RFC3489] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy,
829 "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
830 Through Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489,
831 DOI 10.17487/RFC3489, March 2003,
832 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3489>.
834 [RFC3546] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
835 and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
836 Extensions", RFC 3546, DOI 10.17487/RFC3546, June 2003,
837 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3546>.
839 [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
840 Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
841 DOI 10.17487/RFC3588, September 2003,
842 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3588>.
844 [RFC3734] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
845 Transport Over TCP", RFC 3734, DOI 10.17487/RFC3734, March
846 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3734>.
848 [RFC3920] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
849 Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, DOI 10.17487/RFC3920,
850 October 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3920>.
852 [RFC4132] Moriai, S., Kato, A., and M. Kanda, "Addition of Camellia
853 Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
854 RFC 4132, DOI 10.17487/RFC4132, July 2005,
855 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4132>.
857 [RFC4244] Barnes, M., Ed., "An Extension to the Session Initiation
858 Protocol (SIP) for Request History Information", RFC 4244,
859 DOI 10.17487/RFC4244, November 2005,
860 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4244>.
862 [RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
863 Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
864 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.
866 [RFC4366] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
867 and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
868 Extensions", RFC 4366, DOI 10.17487/RFC4366, April 2006,
869 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4366>.
871 [RFC4492] Blake-Wilson, S., Bolyard, N., Gupta, V., Hawk, C., and B.
872 Moeller, "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites
873 for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4492,
874 DOI 10.17487/RFC4492, May 2006,
875 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4492>.
877 [RFC4507] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,
878 "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without
879 Server-Side State", RFC 4507, DOI 10.17487/RFC4507, May
880 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4507>.
882 [RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
883 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session
884 Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572,
885 DOI 10.17487/RFC4572, July 2006,
886 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4572>.
888 [RFC4934] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
889 Transport Over TCP", RFC 4934, DOI 10.17487/RFC4934, May
890 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4934>.
892 [RFC5077] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,
893 "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without
894 Server-Side State", RFC 5077, DOI 10.17487/RFC5077,
895 January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5077>.
897 [RFC5081] Mavrogiannopoulos, N., "Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport
898 Layer Security (TLS) Authentication", RFC 5081,
899 DOI 10.17487/RFC5081, November 2007,
900 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5081>.
902 [RFC5101] Claise, B., Ed., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
903 Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
904 Flow Information", RFC 5101, DOI 10.17487/RFC5101, January
905 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5101>.
907 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
908 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
909 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
910 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
912 [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
913 Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
914 (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415,
915 DOI 10.17487/RFC5415, March 2009,
916 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5415>.
918 [RFC5456] Spencer, M., Capouch, B., Guy, E., Ed., Miller, F., and K.
919 Shumard, "IAX: Inter-Asterisk eXchange Version 2",
920 RFC 5456, DOI 10.17487/RFC5456, February 2010,
921 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5456>.
923 [RFC6012] Salowey, J., Petch, T., Gerhards, R., and H. Feng,
924 "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport
925 Mapping for Syslog", RFC 6012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6012,
926 October 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6012>.
928 [RFC6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram
929 Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control
930 Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083,
931 DOI 10.17487/RFC6083, January 2011,
932 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6083>.
934 [RFC6084] Fu, X., Dickmann, C., and J. Crowcroft, "General Internet
935 Signaling Transport (GIST) over Stream Control
936 Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and Datagram Transport Layer
937 Security (DTLS)", RFC 6084, DOI 10.17487/RFC6084, January
938 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6084>.
940 [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
941 Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
942 January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
944 [RFC6460] Salter, M. and R. Housley, "Suite B Profile for Transport
945 Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6460, DOI 10.17487/RFC6460,
946 January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6460>.
948 [RFC6614] Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga,
949 "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS",
950 RFC 6614, DOI 10.17487/RFC6614, May 2012,
951 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6614>.
953 [RFC7457] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Summarizing
954 Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
955 Datagram TLS (DTLS)", RFC 7457, DOI 10.17487/RFC7457,
956 February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7457>.
958 [RFC8143] Elie, J., "Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
959 Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)", RFC 8143,
960 DOI 10.17487/RFC8143, April 2017,
961 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8143>.
963 [RFC8261] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto,
964 "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Encapsulation of
965 SCTP Packets", RFC 8261, DOI 10.17487/RFC8261, November
966 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8261>.
968 [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
969 Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
970 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
972 [RFC8447] Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS
973 and DTLS", RFC 8447, DOI 10.17487/RFC8447, August 2018,
974 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447>.
978 Thanks to those that provided usage data and reviewed and/or improved
979 this document, including: Michael Ackermann, David Benjamin, David
980 Black, Deborah Brungard, Alan DeKok, Viktor Dukhovni, Julien Élie,
981 Adrian Farrelll, Gary Gapinski, Alessandro Ghedini, Peter Gutmann,
982 Jeremy Harris, Nick Hilliard, James Hodgkinson, Russ Housley, Hubert
983 Kario, Benjamin Kaduk, John Klensin, Watson Ladd, Eliot Lear, Ted
984 Lemon, John Mattsson, Keith Moore, Tom Petch, Eric Mill, Yoav Nir,
985 Andrei Popov, Michael Richardson, Eric Rescorla, Rich Salz, Mohit
986 Sethi, Yaron Sheffer, Rob Sayre, Robert Sparks, Barbara Stark, Martin
987 Thomson, Sean Turner, Loganaden Velvindron, Jakub Wilk, and
993 Center for Internet Security (CIS)
995 United States of America
997 Email: Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
1001 Trinity College Dublin
1006 Phone: +353-1-896-2354
1007 Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie