On Friday, 4 May 2018 21:54:03 CEST Sean Turner 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
every IETF protocol is just symbolic, there is no IETF police ;) > b) At least person has indicated > they might want code points for a TLS1.2 implementation. then they can ask for SignatureScheme codepoints that follow the TLS 1.2 usage patterns, but even in TLS 1.2 you couldn't ask for ecdsa+md5, so the separate registries weren't a reflection of reality anyway either way, I don't feel strongly about it, it's mostly a semantic difference -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
