On Mon, Jan 22, 2024, at 16:31, Kazuho Oku wrote: > Regarding the code point, doesn't RFC 9000 section 22.1.2 state that > 4-byte or 8-byte code points should be used unless it is "especially > sensitive to having a longer encoding?" My feeling is that transport > parameters and error codes are not sensitive, as they are used only > once per the lifetime of a connection.
That's encouragement that Q might take or not, but - as a designated expert - I can't really say "no" on that basis. > That said, I wonder if it is necessary to request a provisional > registration for every individual draft. My experience has been that > drafts submitted to the working group are discussed and revised. Then, > as they mature, code points are fixed and registered. Again, if the presumption here is that this is going to be deployed, then a code point would help and a provisional registration would help with collision avoidance. This hasn't been discussed in this group, so the risk of collision is perhaps higher. I haven't asked if the intent was to deploy this tweak, but we don't use that as a condition of registration. >From my perspective, I would prefer if drafts that are seeking deployment >choose and register provisional code points. And that drafts that are just >ideas keep their code points set to 0xTBD. It's a tiny bit of clerical work >to support a deployment, but it means that we don't have one rule for people >who are discussing IETF drafts and one for everyone else.
