Martin, The primary reason we are proposing this approach is that it seemed to us to be a bit more explicit about the numbers in this space being part of an experiment. The added benefit here is that we are in some sense greasing the bits too.
spt > On Aug 17, 2021, at 20:08, 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.) > > 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
