The open issue in draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates is whether we should close the registries or simply reserve the remaining values. I’ve submitted the following PR to simply reserve the values and point to the SignatureScheme registry for 1.3 values: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/75 I did this because a) closing a registry is really just symbolic; a draft (or the IESG) can later reopen the registry, and b) At least person has indicated they might want code points for a TLS1.2 implementation. Regardless of what we do we should point to the SignatureScheme registry for 1.3, but I just don’t really see the point in “closing” the registry. If this PR makes you really sad please let us know.
Please note that the gh editor’s copy also includes the IESG-related changes. I’d characterize most of them as good catches (e.g., cached_info was missing) and consistency (e.g., some of the DE language was not consistent). I’d also like to point out that IANA specifically asked about the DE doing such a minimal review and we let them know that yes in some cases it was going to be just that. But, this also made us consider adding the text that was in the security considerations and elsewhere to every DE-related note. It is clearer now what the DE will do in the notes in case people don’t want to take the time to review this draft, which is actually what I think happens in most cases. spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
