Reasonable. But a small RFC isn't automatic with the registration of the ID at IANA. I like the small RFC path.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 19:26 Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, at 12:12, Allison Mankin wrote: > > Question for the WG: > > Would we want to update RFC 7858 (or RFC 8310) to indicate the ALPN ID > > exists? This would be for the sake of future implementors, whether they > > want to run DoT and DoH, or want to cautiously run only DoT on 443.. > > Something like this doesn't need to update RFC 7858, any more than RFC > 7301 updated RFC 2818 when it defined "http/1.1". It can be a small, > standalone document. If there were a reason to reopen RFC 7858 (or 8310), > then I would definitely roll the change in, but the fix doesn't need to be > very disruptive. > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
