On 03/23/2018 07:59 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > So we have two registries that share a number space. > > Sounds like the right solution is for the registries to coordinate. >
Well, there are three registries involved -- two existing one octet registries that apply to TLS 1.2 and below, and a new TLS 1.3 registry with two octets of space. The original proposal by the authors was to mark all the unallocated entries in the existing two registries as either reserved or deprecated. IANA noted that this is effectively the same as closing the registries in terms of the difficulty of making further registrations, though I am not sure that the authors replied to the question that I think I asked about what the procedure is for re-opening a registry should a need arise to allocate an additional codepoint from it. Anyway, it seems rather challenging to try to keep all three registries open and coordinate amongst them, given that the new two-octet registry has a pretty low "specification required" registration policy, and allocations from the existing registries would apparently both require a "contiguous" 256 values to be free in the new registry and then "knock out" those 256 values from further use. This would eat up the free space in the new registry relatively quickly, and presumably would not be compatible with a weak "specification required" policy (which is currently the policy for values 64-223). If we agree that "specification required" is not appropriate for the existing one-octet registries in a proposed "coordinate" scenario, then I don't see what the policy would be other than "standards action" (the current policy for values 0-63). And if "standards action" is the bar, that would require the IETF to do work on TLS 1.2 in order to need a new registration, but this WG is chartered primarily for TLS 1.3 and "require significant justification" to take on work for older versions. So it's extremely unclear to me that there's a plausible scenario in which a registration in the existing registries would occur. Such a case could presumably reopen the existing registries for its use anyway, given the level of review that would be needed. So, in summary, closing these registries seems to adequately reflect (my understanding of) our expectations for what will happen to them. I'm curious to know how your understanding differs. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
