I think that reserving them is the right thing for now. TLS 1.2 and earlier will take a while to disappear, so the ability to assign more values if there is a huge surprise seems prudent.
Russ > On May 4, 2018, at 3:54 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > The open issue in draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates is whether we should > close the registries or simply reserve the remaining values. I’ve submitted > the following PR to simply reserve the values and point to the > SignatureScheme registry for 1.3 values: > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/75 > I did this because a) closing a registry is really just symbolic; a draft (or > the IESG) can later reopen the registry, and b) At least person has indicated > they might want code points for a TLS1.2 implementation. Regardless of what > we do we should point to the SignatureScheme registry for 1.3, but I just > don’t really see the point in “closing” the registry. If this PR makes you > really sad please let us know. > > Please note that the gh editor’s copy also includes the IESG-related changes. > I’d characterize most of them as good catches (e.g., cached_info was > missing) and consistency (e.g., some of the DE language was not consistent). > > I’d also like to point out that IANA specifically asked about the DE doing > such a minimal review and we let them know that yes in some cases it was > going to be just that. But, this also made us consider adding the text that > was in the security considerations and elsewhere to every DE-related note. > It is clearer now what the DE will do in the notes in case people don’t want > to take the time to review this draft, which is actually what I think happens > in most cases. > > spt > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
