On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 07:00:34 pm Eric Rescorla wrote: > This PR involves two changes: > > 1. Attaching the term "ID" to version and defining new enum code points. > 2. Creating a registry > > The first of these seems obfuscatory and unhelpful. The second just seems > unnecessary. Other specifications other than new versions of TLS won't be > adding new code points, so I don't see how a registry helps. > > I would prefer we not merge this PR.
One added feature we get with this registry definition is a range of codepoints for private experimental use. Formal definition might not be strictly needed here, though it shouldn't hurt. My reasoning for the explicit use of "ID" is that it would be more clear to use the term "version ID" to refer to the arbitrary codepoints (e.g. 0x0304) and simply "version number" to refer to the more descriptive "TLS 1.3". Both do end up on-the-wire; the former in the version fields and the later in context strings, which is one of the reasons why I think being more explicit here may be a good idea. The registry was first suggested by Daniel Kahn Gillmor in prior mailing list discussion around rebranding to TLS 2.0 (which we're treating as a separate issue, at the moment). I think it makes sense and I would prefer it be merged, but I don't ascribe very high importance here. Dave _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
