On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:16 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz= 40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> The downside of Standards Action is that it makes experimentation much > more difficult. (Yes, you could address that by setting aside a range for > experimentation.) But is the concern really all that great? In order for it > to materially affect the operation of the Internet, multiple parties would > have to implement and enable it. > > > > What is the real concern about someone defining a whole new sub-protocol > for DTLS? My view is “so what” If it works, and it’s better (by some > metric(s)), great. If it fails, it’s only a subset of users of one > implementation that will feel the affects, until it’s disabled. > > > > Note that expert review requires an available specification, and all other > TLS registries are expert review. Is this one really all that special? > Perhaps it’s worth having an explicit consensus call around this issue, as > opposed to a change made in response to a WGLC review. > I agree with Thomas that adding new mechanisms to RRC without careful review is probably a bad idea, but I concur with Rich that the right way to enforce this is not with restricting access to the code point space. Let's do what we've done elsewhere and mark these RECOMMEND=N -Ekr > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
