The IESG writes:
>The IESG has approved the following document:
>- 'IANA Registry Updates for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram
> Transport Layer Security (DTLS)'
> (draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-05.txt) as Proposed Standard
Now that it's been published, I'd like to request a
Well, this is a bit premature because the document hasn't actually been
published, just approved.
In any case, I don't think we should assign code point 26 to this
extension. I recognize that you have existing implementations that happen
to use it, but that's a result of the unfortunate decision t
>In any case, I don't think we should assign code point 26 to this extension. I
>recognize that you have existing implementations that happen to use it, but
>that's a result of the unfortunate decision to squat on a code point which was
>right in the way of near future assignments, and those imp
Eric Rescorla writes:
>In any case, I don't think we should assign code point 26 to this extension.
>I recognize that you have existing implementations that happen to use it, but
>that's a result of the unfortunate decision to squat on a code point which
>was right in the way of near future assig
> On May 28, 2018, at 12:38 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>
> See my previous comment on why it was used, it was only because implementers
> needed something to put in their code while I waited for the registry draft to
> be published...
I am curious whether (given the rather recent assignment) th
