On 10/23/2017 12:50 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote: > ekr proposed a PR (#47) for draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates that > clarified the specification required rules to include Internet Drafts. > > I believe this is not the intent and we should close the issue. > > I think the intent of specification required is to allow a community > that needs a code point to make a specification available in a public > location that is relevant to that community. I don't think an an I-D > would be appropriate in most cases. >
I'm inclined to agree, given that something with an explicit expiration data cannot be considered "stable". (There's also a bit of a circular dependency in that the allocation would have to point to a preexisting I-D version that could not then be updated to refer to the allocated value, though I don't expect that to actually give anyone much pause.) -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
