On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:46:26PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 09:30:59AM -0700, Adam Langley wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:23 PM Peter Gutmann <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > That's going to cause clashes with implementations that use that value for > > > TLS-LTS, it would be better to use a value other than 26 that isn't > > already in > > > use. > > > > Obviously I'm not adverse to using the occasional, non-IANA code point. But > > they need to be picked randomly and outside the dense, IANA area. > > Otherwise, this is certain to happen in short order. > > Why can't we make it so IANA does early codepoint assignment?
They already do, and we've got documents approved by the IESG that make the registration policy just "specification required" (as opposed to "IETF review"). While Peter did mention the value 26 on the list two years ago, there hasn't exactly been a lot of visible action with TLS-LTS in the intervening period... -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
