> On Feb 5, 2018, at 13:32, Victor Vasiliev <vasi...@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 26, 2018, at 05:26, Alessandro Ghedini <alessan...@ghedini.me> wrote: > > > > Me and Victor would like to ask for early codepoints assignment again, if > > you > > think we are ready now. > > This now on the chair’s list of things to do. It’s been a week and nobody > has complained so I’m thinking the draft is on the right track. Got one > question before we start the RFC7120-dictated early code point assignment > dance: > > Q. What’s the plan for the dictionary? Is a field going to be included later > to indicate which one is in use, or is the dictionary going to be linked to > the extension number and a new one will be minted when the dictionary is > updated? > > The plan is to allocate a new algorithm codepoint for each (compression > method, dictionary) tuple. I don't want to decouple them, because it turns > out that for different algorithms the dictionary can be supplied in different > ways, and thus the actual content for the dictionary may vary. > > (I'll address the nits a little bit later)
I can live with this approach because it’s better than minting a new extension every time. But just for the record then the code points we’re looking to assign now are “no dictionary”. spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
