On Dec 27, 2020, at 10:40 AM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (Speaking without my chairs hat here) > > How about instead of loosening the requirement, we take the top 64 values, > allocate them as either Experimental or FCFS, and it is explicitly noted NOT > REQUIRED (or NO ONE WILL IMPLEMENT THESE FOR YOU). > > That would leave the registry with the strict requirements and allow items to > get code points. > > Too simple an answer?
Yes, but it is close. I agree with Valery and others that allocation in this set of values needs to be "RFC required" to avoid losing track of the actual algorithms. Also, it can't be "the top 64 values" because some of them are already in use. And it really doesn't need to be 64 values: the WG will want to revisit this decision well before then. Making 100-122 be RFC Required, and updating RFC 8624 to show these values with "MAY" in each column, makes the intention clear. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
