> On May 22, 2019, at 10:16, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'd be opposed to this last option without IANA/IETF being on board. By
>>> doing so
>> we are effectively no longer compliant with IETF TLS since we're using
>> certain
>> codepoints and version numbers to mean things that IETF/IANA have no
>> visibility
>> of, i.e. we would be doing exactly what Rich was worried about. I don't see
>> IANA/IETF doing this anytime soon.
>>
>> For the most part, getting IANA on board requires someone in authority email
>> to tls-regis...@iana.org asking for code points and pointing to their spec.
>
> ’someone in authority’ here means the author of the spec who is asking for
> code points?
>
>
> Yes. Or someone involved with the spec.
Hmmm, that would be someone involved in GM/T 0024...
>
