I don't think that this approach is the best we could do. Experiments, particularly large-scale ones, turn into deployments. Consequently the difference between "an experiment" and "a standard" is the date at which you look. See also RFC 6648.
In that light, why not use the entire unassigned space for experiments? A registry policy that allowed allocations for experiments, but marked those entries as temporary (the word "provisional" is usual here) would suffice. Reclaiming these codepoints might be more challenging than the draft makes out; the expiration time you have in the draft is fine, though I expect that any dates will be roundly ignored if code is still shipping. The point of a registry is to avoid collisions and the interoperability failures that follow. So I would also add that all new allocations (experiment or otherwise) should draw from the unassigned space at random, rather than sequentially. That should minimize collisions up until the point where we have exhausted the space. I would also prefer to have no space reserved for private use (though a very small space is tolerable). (It shouldn't be a surprise, but I'm advocating for the same general approach that QUIC took.) On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 09:34, Christopher Wood wrote: > Hi folks, > > Based on discussing regarding draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design during IETF > 111, it became clear that we need some mechanism to deal with > temporary, experimental codepoints for testing out new features. To > that end, Sean and Joe recently published this draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis-00 > > This document obsoletes RFC8447 and updates a number of other relevant > documents. The main changes in this document are: > > - Experimental codepoint policy and process > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis-00#section-17) > - Updated Recommended registry values > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis-00#section-5) > > Please review the document, especially if you have thoughts about the > experimental policy. Assuming there are no major objections, I'd like > to propose that we proceed with the proposal to get things started. > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > 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
