On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 5:09 PM Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> 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.) > I agree with the bit about the unified space. I'm a bit less sure about randomly versus sequentially, but I could go either way. IIRC the QUIC thing leaned somewhat on the space being very big. -Ekr > 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
