I do not think this needs to be a PS specification. The code points here do not require a standards track RFC.
Note that advancing this at PS would require a new IETF LC. -Ekr On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 1:07 AM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:35:09AM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > I would think this is actually a PS given it extents a protocol based on > the extension point this protocol provides. Maybe it is not really adding a > new function but it also kind of is: I would call probing for non-compliant > implementations a protocol function. I mean if we would specify greasing > for a new protocol, I think it would simply be part of the main spec. > > Re "part of the main spec", perhaps, but presumably not a > mandatory-to-implement one? > To look at it a different way, what kind of interoperability requirements > does GREASE mandate? Isn't it just the same interoperability requirements > of the main protocol, i.e., an incremental addition of zero? > > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > 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
