I agree with Ilari about the size of the registry. OTOH, I think it would be good to avoid confusion by creating a large number of code points which we know will be abandoned soonish.
-Ekr On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:19 PM Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 02:44:18PM +0000, Kampanakis, Panos wrote: > > ACK, thx all. So we should refrain from defining such “point-in-time” > > codepoints for other needed long-term algorithm combinations to not > > waste registry space. Only absolutely necessary codepoints should be > > registered. > > That registry has >64,000 free codepoints. I don't see there being > anywhere close enough individual registrations to fill that up, no > matter how loose the criteria are. > > However, with post-quantum, there is another reason to be careful: > The shares are so large that the client effecively only has one shot. > > > Some sort of systematic registrations reseving large chunks of space > is the only way I can foresee the registry being seriously depleted. > In contect of TLS groups, No such registrations exist currently, nor > have I seen proposals for such thing. > > > > > -Ilari > > _______________________________________________ > 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
