- Home
- RFC 9851
RFC 9851: TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze
- R. Salz,
- N. Aviram
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 determined by
TLS Working Group consensus), new TLS Exporter Labels, and
new Application
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 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://
1. Introduction
TLS 1.3 [TLS13] fixes most known deficiencies with TLS 1.2 [TLS12] and its use is growing. Some examples of 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 determined by TLS Working Group consensus) and the exceptions listed in Section 4.¶
This applies to TLS only. As such, it does not apply to DTLS, in any DTLS version.¶
2. Implications for Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)
Cryptographicall
In 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].¶
While the industry was waiting for NIST to finish standardization
It is important to note that 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; anyone wishing to deploy PQC should expect to use TLS 1.3.¶
3. Security Considerations
This entire document is about 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 Designated Experts to constrain the type of entries that can be added to existing registries.¶
This document does not introduce any new limitations on the registrations for either of the following two registries:¶
The following note has been added to the other TLS registries:¶
Any TLS entry added after the IESG approves publication of 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 note has been added to the following TLS registries:¶
-
TLS Alerts¶
-
TLS Authorization Data Formats¶
-
TLS Cached
Information Type Values¶ -
TLS Certificate Compression Algorithm IDs¶
-
TLS Certificate Status Types¶
-
TLS Certificate Types¶
-
TLS Cipher Suites¶
-
TLS Client
Certificate Type 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 Psk
Key Exchange Mode¶ -
TLS Signature
Algorithm¶ -
TLS Signature
Scheme¶ -
TLS Supplemental Data Formats
(Supplemental Data Type )¶ -
TLS Supported Groups¶
-
TLS User
Mapping Type 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 , , <https:///RFC5246 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5246 - [TLS13]
-
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 9846, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9846 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9846 - [TLS13REG]
-
Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS", RFC 9847, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9847 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9847
5.2. Informative References
- [CFRGSLIDES]
-
McGrew, D., "Post Quantum Secure Cryptography Discussion", IETF 95 Proceedings, , <https://
www >..ietf .org /proceedings /95 /slides /slides -95 -cfrg -4 .pdf - [ETSI]
-
ETSI, "CYBER; Migration strategies and recommendations to Quantum Safe schemes", Version 1.1.1, ETSI TR 103 619, , <https://
www >..etsi .org /deliver /etsi_ tr /103600_ 103699 /103619 /01 .01 .01_ 60 /tr_ 103619v010101p .pdf - [ML-DSA]
-
NIST, "Module
-Lattice , NIST FIPS 204, DOI 10-Based Digital Signature Standard" .6028 , , <https:///NIST .FIPS .204 csrc >..nist .gov /pubs /fips /204 /final - [ML-KEM]
-
NIST, "Module
-Lattice , NIST FIPS 203, DOI 10-Based Key -Encapsulation Mechanism Standard" .6028 , , <https:///NIST .FIPS .203 csrc >..nist .gov /pubs /fips /203 /final - [PQC]
-
NIST, "Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)", , <https://
csrc >..nist .gov /projects /post -quantum -cryptography - [PQUIPWG]
-
IETF, "Post-Quantum Use in Protocols", <https://
datatracker >..ietf .org /wg /pquip /about / - [SLH-DSA]
-
NIST, "Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Standard", NIST FIPS 205, DOI 10
.6028 , , <https:///NIST .FIPS .205 csrc >..nist .gov /pubs /fips /205 /final - [TLSWG]
-
IETF, "Transport Layer Security", <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.¶